National The 2nd Amendment Is Clear.

[arakboss]

I disagree with the idea that you can support the 2nd Amendment and simultaneously support infringment of firearm freedoms. Here is another quote from Washington AG Bobby Furgeson:

""I support the second amendment, you can support the second amendment and still support common sense gun reform,"

This is false. You can not support both. The 2nd Amendment is clear when it says "shall not infringe". It does not say that you can infringe when it is politically convenient, when public opinion leans that direction or when kids are getting shot up in schools. If you don't like how absolute the 2nd Amendment is then there is path for Congress to change it. They can add all the exceptions they want if a large majority wishes to do so.

There is a very very long list of people from Biden to Scalia who claim to support the 2nd Amendment in one breath and with the next breath list exceptions where our firearm freedoms can be infringed upon.

Call yourself whatever you want but the 2A is absolute regardless of what tortured interpretations the robes use to limit it. We are forced to live with their interpretations or risk the potential of being locked up. A true 2A supporter won't be fooled by those who support infringment of our freedoms while also professing themselves as 2A supporters. You can be one or the other but not both.

Read More

 

[nammac]

The right of the people shall not be infringed…

Seems pretty straightforward to me…

The robes need to remove all restrictions on the Second Amendment, the words say and mean what the words say and mean…

There's no question in my mind…. Nor the Federalist Papers…

 

[titsonritz]

""I support the second amendment, you can support the second amendment and still support common sense gun reform,"

"No you can't, you're full of chit." would be the accurate rebuttal.

 

[saxon]

fairly cut and dry when you see the original draft ....

Another interesting twist in Madison's proposed Bill of Rights was a different version of what became the Second Amendment.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person," said Madison.


note the ; and it's location.

 

[arakboss]

The right of the people shall not be infringed…

Seems pretty straightforward to me…

The robes need to remove all restrictions on the Second Amendment, the words say and mean what the words say and mean…

There's no question in my mind…. Nor the Federalist Papers…

It seems pretty straightforward to me too but somehow we ended up in a place where a bunch of faux 2A supporters believe shall not meant infringements are welcome. I see it here on NWFA all the time.

 

[titsonritz]

Anyone that starts a sentence with "I support the second amendment, but..." needs a kick in the sack.

 

[arakboss]

It seems pretty straightforward to me too but somehow we ended up in a place where a bunch of faux 2A supporters believe shall not meant infringements are welcome. I see it here on NWFA all the time.

An honest admission for somebody who supports some firearm freedoms but not others would be to say. I don't support the 2A but I do support some firearm freedoms except for xyz.

 

[arakboss]

Anyone that starts a sentence with "I support the second amendment, but..." needs a kick in the sack.

The "but" is the telltale sign of somebody who supports some level of infringment.

 

[papersoldier]

I always tell anti-gun people that if they want to change gun ownership in America, they need to repeal the second amendment. As it stands, as long as the second exists, it's clear cut in my mind that the people should be able to bear arms as they see fit.

I do, however, and probably in opposition to most opinion here, agree that the Constitution is and should be a living document, and should change with the times - so, if the second amendment actually is repealed by vote of the majority of our nations citizenry, I would respect that decision.

 

[arakboss]

I always tell anti-gun people that if they want to change gun ownership in America, they need to repeal the second amendment. As it stands, as long as the second exists, it's clear cut in my mind that the people should be able to bear arms as they see fit.

I do, however, and probably in opposition to most opinion here, agree that the Constitution is and should be a living document, and should change with the times - so, if the second amendment actually is repealed by vote of the majority of our nations citizenry, I would respect that decision.

I hope it doesn't happen but there is an onerous process provided to do so.

 

[Xaevian]

If it was so clear, why is there an issue?

 

[arakboss]

If it was so clear, why is there an issue?

Because many people have been convinced to believe otherwise.

 

[titsonritz]

If it was so clear, why is there an issue?

Because so many people are ignorant fcvks.

 

[Xaevian]

Because many people have been convinced to believe otherwise.

Then it's not very clear, is it?

 

[Xaevian]

Because so many people are ignorant fcvks.

I've been saying something along those lines on the forum for years.

 

[titsonritz]

I've been saying something along those lines on the forum for years.

I'm sorry, I'm not sorry it's true, it's pathetic and willful.

 

[American123]

I disagree with the idea that you can support the 2nd Amendment and simultaneously support infringment of firearm freedoms. Here is another quote from Washington AG Bobby Furgeson:

""I support the second amendment, you can support the second amendment and still support common sense gun reform,"

This is false. You can not support both. The 2nd Amendment is clear when it says "shall not infringe". It does not say that you can infringe when it is politically convenient, when public opinion leans that direction or when kids are getting shot up in schools. If you don't like how absolute the 2nd Amendment is then there is path for Congress to change it. They can add all the exceptions they want if a large majority wishes to do so.

There is a very very long list of people from Biden to Scalia who claim to support the 2nd Amendment in one breath and with the next breath list exceptions where our firearm freedoms can be infringed upon.

Call yourself whatever you want but the 2A is absolute regardless of what tortured interpretations the robes use to limit it. We are forced to live with their interpretations or risk the potential of being locked up. A true 2A supporter won't be fooled by those who support infringment of our freedoms while also professing themselves as 2A supporters. You can be one or the other but not both.

This is just their talking point to try to not come off as a treasonous commie bastard.

 

[arakboss]

Then it's not very clear, is it?

A group of people could stare at a black and white piece of paper for years. If that group was constantly being told, by people they respected, that the piece of paper is actually a rainbow of colors, eventually many in that group will agree that it's a rainbow of colors. The people that brushed off that rainbow of colors nonsense and realize it's still a black and white piece of paper would probably be true 2A supporters.

 

[American123]

I always tell anti-gun people that if they want to change gun ownership in America, they need to repeal the second amendment. As it stands, as long as the second exists, it's clear cut in my mind that the people should be able to bear arms as they see fit.

I do, however, and probably in opposition to most opinion here, agree that the Constitution is and should be a living document, and should change with the times - so, if the second amendment actually is repealed by vote of the majority of our nations citizenry, I would respect that decision.

I don't care how many idiots they can line up to agree - a free people have access to arms. My freedom is not subject to the tyranny of the masses (voting).

 

[papersoldier]

I don't care how many idiots they can line up to agree - a free people have access to arms. My freedom is not subject to the tyranny of the masses (voting).

A thought provoking take, to be sure. I just place more importance on the will of a society as a whole over the will of the individual. Without the agreement on and adherence to the social contract it's just anarchy all the way down.