If Hillary Clinton had won she would have taken away your second amendment

[malaise]

rights.

Dotard Don the Con at the Alabama rally.

Paddock had the rightto kill over 50 people and injure 200 more

[LonePirate]

1. The government can rescind my 2A rights any time they wish. Rescind everyone's please.

[oberliner]

3. What the heck?

Is this parody?

[LonePirate]

4. Nope. The 2A needed to be repealed decades ago. We don't need it.

[oberliner]

5. The government cannot rescind your Constitutional rights

Nor should they be able to.

[LonePirate]

7. They need to pass a new amendment that repeals the 2A. We do not need guns in this country.

[Calculating]

23. Never gonna happen

More regulations yes. A total ban on all guns? No way.

[X_Digger]

25. Rights don't work that way.

The government never 'gave' us a right, so they can't take a right away.

Rights exist, whether or not the government recognizes them.

If you repealed the second amendment, then the right to keep and bead would become an unenumerated right under the ninth amendment.

[LonePirate]

26. Replace the 2A with a new amendment that forbids gun possession and permits their confiscation.

Then we can mandate prison terms for possession of firearms, something that is long overdue.

[X_Digger]

28. The bill of rights is not a 'the people can' document..

It's a 'the government cannot' document. "Congress shall make no law.."

What you want can't be achieved by an amendment to the bill of rights. It would have to be a new power granted to the government, by the people- a constitutional convention would be required.

I don't think you'd understand the ramifications of that.

[LonePirate]

29. I care more about saving lives than protecting the 2A.

It seems you care more about the 2A than the lives of Americans.

[X_Digger]

30. Apparently, proposing an untenable solution demonstrates that you care.

How much do you propose we pay gun owners for each of their guns? That pesky fifth amendment's takings clause.

Or do you want to repeal that one, too?

[LonePirate]

31. I'm sorry but I don't share your gun fetish or your excuses for it.

The 2A needs to be repealed. It needs to be replaced with a new amendment - and those can say whatever we want giving or rescinding anything we want - that outlaws gun ownership and directs the government to confiscate all existing guns and imposes prison sentences on anyone who disobeys. Granted, I'm sure anyone who does not want to give up their guns with probably sacrifice their lives to law enforcement but that's a trade-off I am willing to make in order to prevent future tragedies like the one from yesterday.

You seemingly have no issue with events like yesterday's massacre because you place more value in an outdated document than you do the lives of (other?) Americans.

[X_Digger]

35. I place value in reality, feasability, legality, and constitutionality.

But feel free.

[Act_of_Reparation]

32. Do you care about what kind of legal precedent your plan would set?

If we determine freedoms associated with the Bill of Rights can be rescinded by constitutional amendment, then none of those freedoms are safe. If the 2nd Amendment is rescinded, Congress could then do the same to any freedom they so wish.

[LonePirate]

34. Congress could not do that as tt would require additional amendments.

And if that's what the people want, then so be it.

I'll put you down as caring more about guns than about the lives of Americans.

[Act_of_Reparation]

36. Congress could pass your amendment, but not any others?

Because reasons. You obviously know a lot about the legislative process.

And, I couldn't give a flying fuck in a force ten gale where you "put me down".

[LonePirate]

38. Once the will is there to repeal the 2A, then the will exists to remove guns from this country.

I don't care if it takes one amendment or a dozen. Guns needs to banned and anyone who does not willingly surrender them should be imprisoned. Take your slippery slope argument about other amendments to another thread. You've exposed yourself as a gun supporter enough in this thread.

[Act_of_Reparation]

39. Having trouble distinguishing the "means" from the "end"?

As a religious minority, you'll have to pardon me if I don't soil my pants with excitement at the prospect of handing the Christian right a legal pathway to rescinding the separation between church and state. The fact you dismiss this concern as a "slippery slope" is a strong indication you don't understand the law, or what the term "slippery slope" actually means.

But this isn't just about me and my personal objections to your asinine, shortsighted idea. From a purely practical perspective, there is a much less destructive means to the end: DC v. Heller. You don't need a constitutional amendment to neuter the 2nd Amendment, and you certainly don't need to set the precedent that Congress can, should it ever feel pressured by the public to do so, rescind freedoms explicitly protected in the Bill of Rights. You just need the Supreme Court to reverse the DC v. Heller ruling, and thereby rescinding the individual right to bear arms.

So, no. I think I'll stay right here.

[Eliot Rosewater]

27. No need to rescind, just enforce, guns in locked up militia buildings kill nobody

[whathehell]

8. They have the power to ban certain types of weapons

like automatic, and semi automatics.

They also have the poer to NOT over turn one of the few remaining restrictions on gun ownership, such as that for the mentally ill -- It received very little coverage, but Trump overturned it.

[NewDem17]

17. Automatic rifles

Have been banned since 1968.

Not trying to be snide, just pointing it out. Unless someone is Rich and can afford a pre bad assault rifle that is. But that also means you're registered with the BATF that you own it.

[whathehell]

21. but not assault weapons

which were banned under Clinton via the Brady Bill and brought back again by Repukes.

[uppityperson]

11. Where in the constitution is the right to kill and main all these people?

[bluepen]

13. Its not in the Constitution or any statute. The OP

was using hyperbole, which will get us exactly nowhere in the debate with 2A absolutists.

And the person you responded to isn’t alleging they have a right to kill and maim.

[JHan]

19. The op is a reactionary response to the hyberbole of the gun nutjobs...

so understandable...

And it's a righteous rant. People are dead.

[bluepen]

24. Pretty sure we agree that people are dead.

And I get what the OP was doing—at the start, anyway. Didn’t really finish that way.

[ExciteBike66]

6. Oh I'm sure the problem was "gun free zones" at the concert.

Because if those concergoers had had their 9mm pistols, of course they could have instantly shot the guy with the machine gun firing from 400 yards away!

- The NRA

[Kolesar]

9. Sarcasm, for sure ... eom

[ExciteBike66]

10. Well, technically I was anticipating the NRA's statement on the attack,

but personally I was being very sarcastic.

I wouldn't be surprised if I was right though!

[Le Gaucher]

12. GOP can take the second amendment and shove in the deepest recesses of it's posterior.

This is bullshitest right ever ( assuming that it even qualifies to be one)

[hack89]

14. What a moron. HRC would have been good for gun owners

just like Obama or Bernie.

[lovemydogs]

15. I heard some yahoo on Washington Journal today call in and say that

[mcar]

16. Now malaise, don't politicize this tragedy

by talking about the weapons that killed them.

[ehrnst]

18. More shit thrown at the most qualified POTUS candidate ever. (nt)

[Man_Bear_Pig]

20. She would not have been able to pass a ban...

...with the GOP in control of congress. All they need is one side and they can stop all gun legislation.

Senator DiFi has a bill to ban all semi-automatic rifles and magazines over a certain amount from anyone but the police (which seems a strange position to have, to feel certain items are only good for killing lots of people, but being ok with the police to have those weapons deemed only good for mass murder) but the bill is never allowed to go anywhere.

[ehrnst]

22. It would have passed as sure as single payer.

And HRC, as a laywer, would have known what was and wasn't in violation of the 2nd amendment.

[Historic NY]

33. The stupid don't know how government works.

[Bayard]

37. I just caught part of Chris Hayes' interview

Don't know who, but he said--when the second amendment was penned, automatic weapons were not even imagined, much less collecting dozens of them. It was written so that the government could not seize everyone's guns, leaving them no way to defend themselves or put food on the table. And they were right.

I feel like I need my two shotguns on my farm out in the boonies for various reasons. Someone living in an apartment in the inner-city may feel like they need their gun for other reasons. Who is more right?

There are no good answers for controlling sociopaths. We currently have one in the White House. If someone wants to kill a bunch of people, they're always going to find a way to do it......driving a vehicle into a crowd, bombs, poisoning the water supply, flying planes into buildings, or starting a war.