Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Does anybody give a crap about the 2nd Amendment, or just me? I mean, please folks, help me out here. This is clear as day.

Anybody wanting to get rid of the 2nd amendment is a total blithering idiot. This tactic of taking away guns was the first thing Hitler did and would open the way for total power here as well.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Jjoey52 wrote:Anybody wanting to get rid of the 2nd amendment is a total blithering idiot. This tactic of taking away guns was the first thing Hitler did and would open the way for total power here as well.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I completely disagree, the 2nd Amendment SUCKS and NEEDS TO BE ABOLISHED!!!!!!

expandspanos wrote:Does anybody give a crap about the 2nd Amendment, or just me? I mean, please folks, help me out here. This is clear as day.

Nancy Lanza is so 2011 (or whenever that conspiracy was hatched) and it's about the 11th time you've brought it up. There are SOOOO many more current and relevant conspiracies since.

Boring!!!

Yeah, I agree kalm, the 2nd Amendment SUCKS!

I found the two main players who claimed to be dead in this entire 2nd Amendment reduction hoax..

Do you want me to put them in handcuffs myself too, or?

I think we essentially got rid of the second amendment a long time ago. I think the intent was to prevent the Federal government from having a monopoly on military arms. I don't think it was talking about just guns.

I can see thinking it's a good thing that we don't really follow it. But I don't think we really follow it and I think it's been that way for a long time.

expandspanos wrote:Does anybody give a crap about the 2nd Amendment, or just me? I mean, please folks, help me out here. This is clear as day.

You should stop standing so close to the microwave...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

JohnStOnge wrote:I think we essentially got rid of the second amendment a long time ago. I think the intent was to prevent the Federal government from having a monopoly on military arms. I don't think it was talking about just guns.

I can see thinking it's a good thing that we don't really follow it. But I don't think we really follow it and I think it's been that way for a long time.

It was about the cost of keeping a standing Army. If you want to go after the second amendment, argue that it is not necessary since we now have a standing Army.

Was Robin Williams killed to keep him from telling the world he was the real Han Solo?

The second amendment by some called the amendment of last resort enables citizens to keep and bear arms in case the government gets too much power in which case the citizens overthrow the government.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

JohnStOnge wrote:I think we essentially got rid of the second amendment a long time ago. I think the intent was to prevent the Federal government from having a monopoly on military arms. I don't think it was talking about just guns.

I can see thinking it's a good thing that we don't really follow it. But I don't think we really follow it and I think it's been that way for a long time.

Are you taking the progtard view on the limited scope of the 2d Amendment, JSO? Didn't you agree with Heller?

Some conservative you are.

Ivytalk wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:I think we essentially got rid of the second amendment a long time ago. I think the intent was to prevent the Federal government from having a monopoly on military arms. I don't think it was talking about just guns.

I can see thinking it's a good thing that we don't really follow it. But I don't think we really follow it and I think it's been that way for a long time.

Are you taking the progtard view on the limited scope of the 2d Amendment, JSO? Didn't you agree with Heller?

Some conservative you are.

I was unaware of the word "progtard" until I saw your typing of it. I do think that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. It's what it says. It gives the need for militia as a reason for establishing the protection but it does not make a militia a condition of it. Also I think when you look at the history of the time it's clear that that was an important concept.

But in general I do not look at the US Judiciary as a credible source of information on what the Constitution actually says and or how those who crafted it understood it. I don't really look at US Supreme Court decisions as providing accurate information in that regard.

And I don't think the US community of jurists is dishonest about that. I think it's pretty clear that the prevalent view is that courts should not be restricted to rendering decisions according to language and strict adherence to original understanding. I don't like it. But I don't think there's an pretense about it.

Jjoey52 wrote:The second amendment by some called the amendment of last resort enables citizens to keep and bear arms in case the government gets too much power in which case the citizens overthrow the government.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Only by stupid fvcks that think they would be able to stand against military firepower with their pissant deer rifle. Stupid fvcks like you...

Most definitely, I agree with the title of this thread...

I'm sick of constantly looking for safe spaces and gun-free zones...

Let's make the entire country gun-free, except for the police and some military...

The 2nd Amendment is kind of useless because it should be understood without stating, no? If you believe in the 10 Amendments, then you believe in God. Why would you put another god before Him?

CAA Flagship wrote:The 2nd Amendment is kind of useless because it should be understood without stating, no? If you believe in the 10 Amendments, then you believe in God. Why would you put another god before Him?

I see what you did there...

houndawg wrote:

Jjoey52 wrote:The second amendment by some called the amendment of last resort enables citizens to keep and bear arms in case the government gets too much power in which case the citizens overthrow the government.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Only by stupid fvcks that think they would be able to stand against military firepower with their pissant deer rifle. Stupid fvcks like you...

Only stupid fvcks would call an AR-15 a deer rifle. Stupid fvcks like you.

houndawg wrote:

Jjoey52 wrote:The second amendment by some called the amendment of last resort enables citizens to keep and bear arms in case the government gets too much power in which case the citizens overthrow the government.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Only by stupid fvcks that think they would be able to stand against military firepower with their pissant deer rifle. Stupid fvcks like you...

Let's see...the Iraqi "resistance" did a pretty good job in a guerilla fashion with just AK-47s and IEDs against the might of the U.S. Army...

Are you saying American's could not do the same...plus, how much stomach does the U.S. military have for going up against friends, family, etc...

Asking for a friend...

Col Hogan wrote:

houndawg wrote:
Only by stupid fvcks that think they would be able to stand against military firepower with their pissant deer rifle. Stupid fvcks like you...

Let's see...the Iraqi "resistance" did a pretty good job in a guerilla fashion with just AK-47s and IEDs against the might of the U.S. Army...

Are you saying American's could not do the same...plus, how much stomach does the U.S. military have for going up against friends, family, etc...

Asking for a friend...

As for the question does the military have the stomach to shoot family's friends etc., I would hope they would not, but in other countries the military seems to be able to fire on their own.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk