Debates
08 Jul 22
10 Jul 22
@metal-brain saidYou don't need to repeal, it says right in the Second Amendment that the purpose of gun ownership is specifically to maintain a "well-regulated militia". Since this is no longer needed to for the "security of a free state", there is no longer a constitutional right to it.
Then repeal the constitution, don't argue with it. That will accomplish nothing.
For the third time, there must be guns in Japan. How else would they hunt?
10 Jul 22
@vivify saidSo the 2nd amendment is invalid and it's words mean nothing? LOL!
You don't need to repeal, it says right in the Second Amendment that the purpose of gun ownership is specifically to maintain a "well-regulated militia". Since this is no longer needed to for the "security of a free state", there is no longer a constitutional right to it.
You gave a reason to repeal it, not ignore it.
The "security of a free state" is not invalid because you want it to be. It is in the constitution. Accept those words or repeal it.
10 Jul 22
@metal-brain saidYes it's invalid since a militia is no longer "necessary to the security of a free State".
So the 2nd amendment is invalid and it's words mean nothing? LOL!
You gave a reason to repeal it, not ignore it.
The "security of a free state" is not invalid because you want it to be. It is in the constitution. Accept those words or repeal it.
10 Jul 22
@vivify saidSo come up with a plan so the criminals don't have any guns and the law abiding citizens will concede to less guns.
Yes it's invalid since a militia is no longer "necessary to the security of a free State".
Starting with attacking the law abiding gun owners just leaves people at the mercy of gun toting criminals.
It may be that the USA has so many guns in the hands of criminals that no new policy will work.
My suggestion was a mandatory life sentence and no parole for anyone caught with an illegal gun.
After that...give out life sentences for crimes with a gun to cover the legal gun owners who use them.
11 Jul 22
@ron-desantis saidDue to Republican abuse of the filibuster Dems need 2/3 majority to get anything done.
@vivify
Also, during Obama's time y'all had the House and Senate for a long enough period to do something.
I'm pretty sure y'all have the House and Senate now right?
11 Jul 22
1 edit
@athousandyoung saidAnd the Democrats used it against Trump 🤷
Due to Republican abuse of the filibuster Dems need 2/3 majority to get anything done.
The only reason why Dems want it eliminated is because it is being used against them but they had no problem using it.
11 Jul 22
@vivify - Since this is no longer needed to for the "security of a free state", there is no longer a constitutional right to it.
----------------------
Wrong - on more than one level.
1. It is a constitutional right, no conditions are placed on it. It is there **in hopes of** having militias formed.
2. The people *do* have a need to protect themselves from wrongful leaders or to have an uprising/revolution.
The right to a revolution is a natural right.
11 Jul 22
@athousandyoung saiduhHuh.
Due to Republican abuse of the filibuster Dems need 2/3 majority to get anything done.
the democrats should have been hard at work at:
a) getting rid of the electoral college system of electing the POTUS
b) getting rid of tax loopholes
c) getting rid of the filibuster
Oh well, another golden opportunity is slipping by.
11 Jul 22
@earl-of-trumps saidThe Republicans would never tolerate the removal of the EC don’t be silly
uhHuh.
the democrats should have been hard at work at:
a) getting rid of the electoral college system of electing the POTUS
b) getting rid of tax loopholes
c) getting rid of the filibuster
Oh well, another golden opportunity is slipping by.
11 Jul 22
1 edit
@earl-of-trumps saidThat Constitutional right has a specific premise: That a well-regulated militia is "necessary" to secure a free state. That premise is no longer true in a country with the world's most powerful military.
@vivify - Since this is no longer needed to for the "security of a free state", there is no longer a constitutional right to it.
----------------------
Wrong - on more than one level.
1. It is a constitutional right, no conditions are placed on it. It is there **in hopes of** having militias formed.
2. The people *do* have a need to protect themselves ...[text shortened]... wrongful leaders or to have an uprising/revolution.
The right to a revolution is a natural right.
By the 2nd Amendment's own conditions it's no longer valid.