Time to repeal 2A Says Rolling Stone Mag and Constitutional Law Professor

Joined
Apr 3, 2009
Messages
2,143
Likes
368
Location
Southern NH
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
So as the editorial staff at RSM collectively pisses themselves and publish multiple anti gun articles this Constitutional law prof. cherry picks his points...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...the-second-amendment-right-bear-arms-20160613


Rolling Stone Seems to be working overtime to make sure they fear monger...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...-harder-to-get-than-an-assault-rifle-20160614

and

http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...w-about-the-ar15-gun-used-in-orlando-20160613

It's a well written argument, he's probably right that the founders didn't envision 1 man killing 50 with a firearm.

But imo, the major flaw in his argument is simply that, like most things the government does these days, it'll have the opposite effect it intends. We won't be more safe, we'll be less safe, from criminals who don't care about 2A, and from our government's tyrannical tendencies.

And even knowing about the AR-15, the founders would still have insisted on 2A, because they didn't make laws based on raw numbers (50 potential murders vs 5), but on principle.
 
Last edited:
Get on with it then, repeal it and see what happens. If anyone even puts a bill on the floor to ban 11+ round mags, I'm buying a stack of Pmags and bringing them all home. I live in Mass so that is a crime, and at that point I no longer care.

Unless you address the real problem, unknown/unvetted illegals, gang-bangers and criminals that get the revolving door treatment; banning a type or series or even all guns will do nothing.
 
I think the founding fathers new darn well arms would advance. I don't believe for one secound our writers of the constitution didn't use a specific term other than arms by mistake.

We either have to collectively as a United nation come back to the freedoms of the constitution or draw sides.
 
I think the founding fathers new darn well arms would advance. I don't believe for one secound our writers of the constitution didn't use a specific term other than arms by mistake.

Of course. They were in the checks-and-balances business.
 
I think the founding fathers new darn well arms would advance. I don't believe for one secound our writers of the constitution didn't use a specific term other than arms by mistake.

We either have to collectively as a United nation come back to the freedoms of the constitution or draw sides.

What do you mean "arms"? Like the cannons, powder and shot that were part of the militia tools utilized? You know, the ones just like the Regular British Army turned on those that made this country free from the over-reaching governing body?

Hmm - hadn't thought of it that way before...
 
Get on with it then, repeal it and see what happens...

It is the only way to make any gun law Constitutional, IMHO.

If it's no longer relevant, there is a process to change it. 2/3 of Congress (or a Constitutional Convention) and 3/4 of the states to ratify.

The States that didn't ratify will secede immediately, and within the states that did ratify there would be Revolution.

The Armed People, per the Second Amendment, are in fact, a branch of the Government defined in the Constitution, and all Powers not explicitly granted to the Congress or President, or to the States, are reserved to the People. Secession and Revolution are two of those Powers.

What would the Constitutional Professor say to that?
 
It is the only way to make any gun law Constitutional, IMHO.

If it's no longer relevant, there is a process to change it. 2/3 of Congress (or a Constitutional Convention) and 3/4 of the states to ratify.

The States that didn't ratify will secede immediately, and within the states that did ratify there would be Revolution.



The Armed People, per the Second Amendment, are in fact, a branch of the Government defined in the Constitution, and all Powers not explicitly granted to the Congress or President, or to the States, are reserved to the People. Secession and Revolution are two of those Powers.

What would the Constitutional Professor say to that?

There is also a third way--the original way: take up arms for your cause. Oh wait, who has all the guns?
 
I had that discussion with Rep Tsongas about the original intent.

She talked about how they didn't mean, 'Assault Weapons'. I then asked, muskets and what they had then? She said yes; I said okay, where's my cannon? People who had private ships or storehouses had a cannon.

I got the hook about then.

They don't really mean what they had then either - they mean nothing.

The whole the 2nd is fixed in 1789 but everything else evolves with the times is an interesting (idiotic) but interesting piece of ground to stake out.
 
So as the editorial staff at RSM collectively pisses themselves and publish multiple anti gun articles this Constitutional law prof. cherry picks his points...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...the-second-amendment-right-bear-arms-20160613


Rolling Stone Seems to be working overtime to make sure they fear monger...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...-harder-to-get-than-an-assault-rifle-20160614

and

http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...w-about-the-ar15-gun-used-in-orlando-20160613

It time for everybody to stop buying and supporting Rolling Stone magazine, so the go out of business!
 
You know what the founders could not have envisioned?

A situation where THREE HUNDRED people are unarmed against a single armed assailant.
 
You know what the founders could not have envisioned?

A situation where THREE HUNDRED people are unarmed against a single armed assailant.

tumblr_noenylQkFh1s8njeuo1_500.gif
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom