See second amendment 
And the amendment process is available to get rid of the second amendment as well.
The second one is a lot better than the first one.
And pro-gunner = pro choice? 
I do think there are a lot of analogies between the two.
One side wants to exercise constitutionally protected rights and the other side wants to whittle them away (often with the ultimate goal of getting rid of them entirely).
Yeah, there’s nothing in there about using arms to secure the rights of individuals, just the security of the state. If anything, that implies it is not intended to facilitate uprisings against the U.S. government, even if it has become oppressive in some ways but remains “free” in others. Consider the oath of allegiance (written while the revolution was still in progress) contains the phrase “all enemies, foreign and domestic”. Once the revolution was complete and a new government established, I don’t see where that new government installed or implied legal language that anticipated its violent overthrow. The mechanisms for change are uniformly nonviolent - try violence, and you become a domestic enemy.
Yes, but it’s somewhat unfortunate for your country that for many this has become a matter of principle and not logic.
Yeah, why do you think that is? Is the whittling desired for the sake of whittling? Just to be spiteful? Just for the hell of it?
Someone would make one.
(shortened for clarity)
Apparently you missed the SCOTUS ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). The 2nd Amendment IS an individual right.
In fact, ALL of the first 10 amendments are rights of the individual and not the state. Every reference to “the people” means just that - the people.
What is this Heller decision you speak of? No one has brought it up in this thread even once!
No, I didn’t miss anything - I was responding to the specific claim that the 2nd Amendment was all I needed to reference (“See second amendment”). Of course there are later court decisions clarifying how the amendment should be interpreted and applied - this is true of of all constitutional governments where the founding document spells out the principles in broad strokes, to be later clarified by legislation and court rulings. I gather this was recognized from the 13th amendment onward, where Amendments generally include wording along the lines of “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
Heck, on its face, the 14th Amendment should have immediately given women the vote and legalized gay marriage and solved all the issues that made the later Civil Rights Act necessary. Obviously, it did not.
Anyway, Heller is the latest interpretation, but it won’t be the last, I expect. Cruikshank wasn’t. Miller wasn’t.
Well, that’s one interpretation. It’s not the only one. The upshot is that is that anyone who wants to argue for individual gun ownership should be citing Heller (the latest interpretation of the 2nd Amendment) and not the 2nd Amendment itself, but I guess that means sacrificing all that “Founding Fathers” street cred.
You must be new to the gun-rights issues in the U.S…
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010). The 2nd Amendment is an individual right and it applies to all of “the people” in the U.S. allowing for certain restrictions. It also states that the government can’t force firearm owners to disable their firearms in their homes.
You must be new to the thread.
Or the board.
By the way, as of today, I’ve lost $14.61 on my investment, and that’s not counting the $9.99 transaction fee. Some of this may be due to fluctuations between the U.S. and Canadian dollar or maybe sanity is returning to America.
Thats true for both sides of the debate.
For the ultimate goal of getting rid of the right entirely. In both cases.
And yet people keep forgetting its there.
Where in the Cruikshank or Miller ruling did it state that the 2nd was not/could not be an individual right? Heller specifically stated that the 2nd was an individual right.
Which political party are you expecting to create this gun-free utopia you favor? An independent party? A new party that hasn’t been formed yet? Or are you counting on the Democrat Party to finally complete its repeated attempts to ban/register/confiscate firearms, one at a time, or in assault weapon bunches?
Well, if I’m not mistaken the push for longarm registration began under Campbell and was supported by a number of Conservatives and Progressive Conservatives, although there was admittedly a great deal of dissension in the ranks, and the bulk of the Conservative party has since fought against it. The Firearms Act of 1993 was introduced by the Liberal Party; members of all four major federal parties supported it, though again, a large portion of the Conservative party continues in opposition.
So I’d take a wild stab and suggest he’s probably looking to the Liberal party and the NewDems.
Oh, also, I find it absolutely fascinating that you conflate “registration” with “banning” and “confiscation.” That says a lot.
Yes it does. Registration is the first step of confiscation. You need to learn what your opposition’s main concerns “actually” are if you intend to change minds.
Yes, you’re absolutely right. Just look at what happened after they introduced registration in Canada! Don’t be fooled!
You seem to be operating under several misconceptions, my friend.
And you do that how?
And purchase is the first step toward massacre.
The usual ways. Ask questions and listen to the answers.