To Preserve Gun Rights, We Must Replace the Second Amendment

[Catskillkid]

Justin Haskins - To Preserve Gun Rights, We Must Replace the Second Amendment

Unbelievable. And this coming from a guy who supposedly supports gun rights. I guess the states can pass legislation to restrict 1st Amendment Rights too.

The 2nd Amendment applies to all states and localities in the United States of America. And key phraseology, much to the gun grabbers chagrin, is "...shall not be infringed." What part of that do they not understand?!

 

[GOYABEAN]

 

[Darth]

I read the whole thing twice, and I still have no idea what he's talking about.

 

[Catskillkid]

I read the whole thing twice, and I still have no idea what he's talking about.

If I understand it he wants a new Amendment that says pro-gun states can have as much freedom as they want but anti-gun states can go full on ban if they want. Supposedly that keeps the peace and the Republic intact.

 

[Exonautic]

If you ever want to move our country closer to civil war this is how you do it. Legislate each half of the country differently. Yeah that'll work out.

 

[Toecutter]

Or how bout of you don't like our country and culture you get the fuck out . Move if you hate being free.

 

[SomeSoldier]

I'll believe that when me shit turns purple and smells like rainbow sherbet.

 

[Mr. terzmo]

This, coupled with clarifying language that makes it more difficult for federal authorities to restrict gun rights, would permit states to issue stricter gun bans, assuming their state constitutions allow it.

"would permit states to issue stricter gun bans, assuming their state constitutions allow it." What a screwed idea...the furher given the green light to restrict everything

 

[Paxal]

I read the whole thing twice, and I still have no idea what he's talking about.

So, states rights vs federal rights. So if you live in New York State, no guns for you. If you live in Utah, twenty guns per household - minimum. So the country would become ever more polarized as the people self-select their homeland within in the United States. The United States would no longer, and officially, be united. There would be a civil war, and the gun supporting states would run over all the others, the constitution would then be reinstated across the entire land.

It seems like we are heading that way even without a new 2nd Amendment.

 

[Koz]

This wacko is clueless on steroids.

 

[@thewheels]

Sounds like this clown wants to do away with the incorporation doctrine. Sorry son, that cat has been out of the bag since the 14th amendment was ratified and SCROTUS actually started understanding the due process clause.
If you want to change the 14th, I'm thinking you'll have one hell of a time in today's political climate.

 

[ProgSpear]

Hey Justin! BFYTY!

 

[Steal2B]

It's Haskins. A nerdy 20 something young North Carolina right leaning millennial blogger who lives off his wife. He is a Pat Robertson school (Christian Broadcasting Network College now aka Regent) grad. He is a prolific blogger with nearly his whole young life spent as a keyboard monkey, with few life experiences, likely little or zero range time and earns some money whipping out fairly well written stories with click bait headlines. Looks like he is the FUDD of young right leaning or libertarian bloggers with no policy impact or experience and does not get 2A. Some of his postings and columns are fun reads but the millennial twerp is a keyboard FUDD so I edited this post with a visual accordingly.

 

[Saltwater60]

If I understand it he wants a new Amendment that says pro-gun states can have as much freedom as they want but anti-gun states can go full on ban if they want. Supposedly that keeps the peace and the Republic intact.

I agree and came to the same conclusion. However no one in the USA would agree to that. Iconservatives would say no because it restricting rights and liberals would say no because you could buy a full auto chain saw bombblaster in Texas and bring it to nys.

 

[Toecutter]

If I understand it he wants a new Amendment that says pro-gun states can have as much freedom as they want but anti-gun states can go full on ban if they want. Supposedly that keeps the peace and the Republic intact.

That's is the way the state govenments should work as long as they are not violating our rights thats how the constitution is set up ,the tenth amendment. If the states violate our rights its the federal govnerments job to step in and set things strait so banning guns in any state is a no no. The powers of the feds is very limited in our constitution they have no right to tell us how to live our lives or what I can and cant own . They need to pave our roads secure the borders clamp down on states operating outside of the constitution and keep there shit out of my business.

 

[Dr. Evil]

Just another example of what I was referring to on the AR forum thread. Just because someone owns a gun doesn't mean they get it. As I promised, "Fuck off."

 

[GOPerfect]

If they are serious about getting rid of the 2A or any other amendment, do it the legal way. Hold a convention and have it replaced.

Do it, do it now!

 

[holdover]

Well if your going to have a civil war, your going to have to start somewhere.

Ive said it 100 times , they are planning on the balkanization of the US , to break it up into several manageable pieces ,( shaped like bananas.) globalism is against the nation state. The US is the greatest nation state in the last 100 years. It doesn't fit the new plan.

 

[DoD1776]

I don’t need remember who said this but,

A country without guns and people without guns aren’t citizens, they’re servants.

 

[GOPerfect]

Well if your going to have a civil war, your going to have to start somewhere.

Ive said it 100 times , they are planning on the balkanization of the US , to break it up into several manageable pieces ,( shaped like bananas.) globalism is against the nation state. The US is the greatest nation state in the last 100 years. It doesn't fit the new plan.

I think you are completely wrong. @Willjr75 has been talking to many of his passengers and they are all telling him everything is just fine and dandy.

If you cannot trust the train driver, who can one trust!?

 

[96coal449]

They will have a hall of a fight. They have to fight the free states and the free men within their states.

 

[Steal2B]

I don’t need remember who said this but,

A country without guns and people without guns aren’t citizens, they’re servants.

A man with a gun is a citizen. A man without a gun is a subject. John Lott

 

[wdeister08]

If you ever want to move our country closer to civil war this is how you do it. Legislate each half of the country differently. Yeah that'll work out.

I think we had two systems of governing states once before too. Something about slave states and free states. Anyone know how that worked out? That bearded fellow, Mr Lincoln ever get it together?

 

[Steal2B]

Wanted to add pic of the millennial twerp FUDD keyboard jockey who authored the I got mine opinion piece.

 

[Catskillkid]

A man with a gun is a citizen. A man without a gun is a subject. John Lott

I would argue that an unarmed man is not a servant. He is a SLAVE.

 

[Steal2B]

I would argue that an unarmed man is not a servant. He is a SLAVE.

In todays bizzaro world the enlightened philosopher with such an accurate statement would be banished by the outcry from out of control SJWs as an insensitive honor stealing racist.

 

[96coal449]

I would argue that an unarmed man is not a servant. He is a SLAVE.

We're basically slaves now ..... pay income tax, fees, permits, tolls ......supporting a system that feeds off us so we can support it more.

 

[Cooolone]

"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

The only "RIGHT" identified with that exclamation! How did they know to add the embellishment, and STILL people just don't get it.

They never will...

No need to change anything! 200+ years and it stands, it'll stand long after we are all gone. Just apply the 2nd as you do all others, with "STRICT" scrutiny, then all arguments disappear!