"Conservative" Columnist: Repeal Second Amendment

The 2A will have to be repealed or amended first. The political support doesn't exist...if anything, the numbers would likely be there to strengthen it.

 

I am shocked that came from Lil Mike. Maybe I got the guy wrong and thought he was not a Democrat. I say Democrat but mean all who support them of any stripe or smell.

When I first planned to be a real estate agent, here in left wing California, we all had to learn and know a lot more law than I expected.

We learned of what is called the bundle of rights. I have yet to read any on the left wing side know what the Bundle of rights is.

They seem to assume unless somebody else tells you so, you don't have any rights at all. That some man on high, called a politician tells you if you have rights or not.

To my way of thinking, this only changes from a King on high, to some body on high. It makes no difference to me if his title is King or Senator.

So what are your bundle of rights?

Note to readers. This is on real estate. Real Estate is property. Your auto, your clothes, your guns, your other possessions are all private property. Keep this in mind since you indeed do have rights.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bundle-of-rights.asp

 

It adds cost to venues, but so did TSA. TSA annoys the heck out of me. i recall the day I could purchase a ticket at the airline counter and moments later be headed to the gate to board the aircraft. Now it is a major production.

Events will sooner or later start protecting the paying customers. Paddock gave this a huge kick start. Events will hire armed guards who will keep a wary eye on all areas shooters can be found and keep eyes on those areas. Events won't like it. I won't like it. But due to how things are, it will happen. We will get protected at venues. By armed men.

 

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating for eliminating the 2nd Amendment. I'm pro 2A and regard it as a bedrock of American liberties. But I thought the opinion piece was worth posting. First, because it shows the utter shallowness and banality of never trumper "conservatives." Before coming to the New York Times, Bret Stephens was a long time conservative columnist at the Wall Street Journal. He's someone I've read for years and have at least assumed that we were often on the same page. The Trump era has lead to a great unmasking of fake rightists, and it was worthwhile in identifying one.

Secondly, the idea of repealing the second amendment is exactly what liberals want to do, but they just won't say it. I want the issue out in the open and discussed. I want Chuck and Nancy to be asked questions about it. I want every single Democrat running for Congress in 2018 asked about it. The results could be enlightening.

 

Do not assume residence in the united states on the part of myself, simply because the position of yourself is being disagreed with.

 

Illegal weapons cannot be made subject to paperwork requirements, because they cannot be owned or otherwise possessed in the first place. Nor can criminal individuals be charged with failure to abide by paperwork requirements, as the united state supreme court has stated that such is a violation of their right against self incrimination. Legally a felon cannot be prosecuted for failing to register a sawed-off shotgun in their possession, because it would be forcing them to admit to having committed a crime.

 

The united state supreme court is also in the habit of refusing to overturn its own precedent once precedent has been established.

 

Gorsuch is going to startle the gun huggers some, I think.

 

You are hoping people do not know about the Maryland appellate case coming up to SCOTUS.

Also I think I will let the court decide these things than rely on your opinion.

 

Neil Gorsuch signalled a willingness to heart appeals of lower level cases pertaining to firearm-related restrictions that he felt violated the Heller ruling. Such does not indicate a belief or willingness to restrict firearms.

Since the united state supreme court has stated, in absolute terms, that the second amendment extends prima facia to all implements that may constitute bearable arms, there is no reason to believe they will allow magazine capacity restrictions to remain in place, no matter how the case may be argued.

And exactly what do you intend to let the court decide in this matter? Be specific.

 

Exactly, you could fix the issue, but your people are so wrapped up in your gun freedom mythology you now lack the will to fix a problem that is costing you soooo much.

 

Exactly what is the problem that is being referred to by yourself? Be specific.

 

I am happy for you to clarify that point, to confirm where exactly your residence is?

 

Oh, I do hope the both of you do just that.

 

Yup, that's why in its wisdom, SCOTUS smartly reserved to itself to not be bound by any precedent concerning the 2dA.

 

3 problems, all the same issue.

Sandy Hook
Orlando
Las Vegas

I am sure there are many more that I haven't listed. They all come from the same issue that both American Culture and Law is such that obtaining weapons to massacre many many people is far far to easy in that country.

Change the law and culture and you go a long way to decreasing the problems caused by the issue.

 

If by your people you mean Americans, the majority of Americans support the 2A, and in fact the trend toward gun rights has been increasing in state legislatures. It's no a lack of will to resist the left's desire to erode individual rights, rather a a desire and will maintain protection of Constitutional rights.

BTW... do you think the US should adopt similar laws to that of the U.K.?

 

You mean like the thug culture that accounts for the vast majority of the homicides in this country. Got it.

 

(1) Gorsuch is now under the influence and guidance of senior justices who will help him on the nuances of these matters.

(2) SCOTUS has said it will not be constrained by precedent on 2dA matters.

(3) Kennedy would grin at your arguments.

 

Somewhere in eastern Europe based on the syntax and diction. English is not his first language, but he is fluent if not native.

 

Americans overwhelmingly want stricter regulations of these instruments of mass murder. No on has a Constitutional right to mass murder.

 

No one is claiming the right to mass murder. That's why it's against the law. You're going to have to restrict or ban man, many common household items. And trucks.

 

Curious, Who are you referring to?

 

Your wish was granted long ago.