Repealing on of the Bill of Rights is not going to happen any time in the near future without a Constitutional Convention.

 

So instead - brainwashing seems to the tactic:

 

As it should be.

 

The Framers of The Constitution intended for amending of the Constitution to be difficult, as they understood changing our Constitution needed to have overwhelming support.

Which to me (bolded) is no different than wanting is repealed...it's essentially the same thought process, in my opinion, which is why I say the number is way higher than 5%.

 

Not even remotely the same thing....I don't want Duke to win the national title, but I don't care if they do. By your logic that's the same as saying I want them to win it.

Not even remotely the same thing....I don't want Duke to win the national title, but I don't care if they do. By your logic that's the same as saying I want them to win it.

 

Absolutely not the same. Not caring if it's (2nd amendment) repealed equates, in the end to the same as wanting it repealed. Because if it ever came to a point where there was an actual fight to repeal it, those that would be fine with it/not care wouldn't fight to NOT have it repealed. Thus their actions would have the same affect as those that actively WANTED to repeal it.

 

It's all conjecture anyway as we will never see any real leeway towards repealing the 2nd amendment, not in our lifetime anyway (I don't think), but still.

Retired Supreme Court Justice Breyer basically said he was.

 

Many may not be for repealing but are for neutering so drastically with gun control that it no longer protects the rights it was originally meant to, just hunting and keeping one in your home under lock and key where it doesn't do much good when needed.

 

To add to this, we know that outright banning all at once is not possible. Many will ask for some restrictions, then in a few yrs they will ask for more, then more and then someday with a national list of gun owners they will come and ask for everyone to turn in their guns.

 

It has been done in other countries and all of them have seen increases in crime, for example England and Australia. Even commie controlled China has seen a large number of stabbings with multiple victims dead and wounded (article by Mark Chestnut in NRA's America's 1st Freedom).

I also voted no, but would be in favor of some control. Do we really need to own semi automatic assault rifles that can kill so many so quickly?

 

Yes, we do...Why would you even ask a question like that ? !?!

[ATTACH]53923[/ATTACH]

 

The Australian Gun Ban Conceit

 

 

"In fact, according to the Australian government’s own statistics, a number of serious crimes peaked in the years after the ban. Manslaughter, sexual assault, kidnapping, armed robbery, and unarmed robbery all saw peaks in the years following the ban, and most remain near or above pre-ban rates. The effects of the 1996 ban on violent crime are, frankly, unimpressive at best. "

 

A broader look

 

The Facts That Neither Side Wants To Admit About Gun Control

 

 

"Poverty has a greater correlation to violent crime than access to firearms. Education and poverty are directly linked. In short, we don’t have a gun problem in the United States, we have a cultural problem."

 

From same article - lets toss out the government overthrow angle - just for fun....

 

"Russia recently relaxed its firearms laws. For the first time in recent memory, a Russian citizen can carry a firearm. The prohibited items speak volumes about what a government’s motive behind disarming the population is. Russia has allowed “smoothbore long barrelled guns, pistols, revolvers, and other firearms, as well as Tasers, and devices equipped with teargas.” That’s almost everything, what is still banned? Rifles. So the Russian government has made it clear that the real objective is to remove rifles from civilian hands. The reasoning is pretty clear: you need rifles to overthrow a government."

 

That crafty Putin....

Absolutely not the same. Not caring if it's (2nd amendment) repealed equates, in the end to the same as wanting it repealed. Because if it ever came to a point where there was an actual fight to repeal it, those that would be fine with it/not care wouldn't fight to NOT have it repealed. Thus their actions would have the same affect as those that actively WANTED to repeal it.

 

It's all conjecture anyway as we will never see any real leeway towards repealing the 2nd amendment, not in our lifetime anyway (I don't think), but still.

 

I like you, BVM, but I absolutely don't agree with you at all on this issue. And like you say, there's little chance of it happening, so I'm just not thinking it's worth the effort to continuing arguing about.

Yes' date=' we do...Why would you even ask a question like that ? !?![/quote']

 

The peasants aren't allowed the same protection options as the govt or police. Make sure your taxes are filed by 4/15 though.

I think that rather than WANTING the 2nd repealed, some would not care if it was. That's where I am. I'm not pushing that agenda, because it's a futile exercise. But if it happened, I'd not be upset.

 

The sticking point always is that what people in favor of regulations and controls list, those afraid of a repeal of the 2nd take as the first steps to repeal.

 

So how do you feel about the rest of the Bill of Rights?

I also voted no, but would be in favor of some control. Do we really need to own semi automatic assault rifles that can kill so many so quickly?

 

You have no clue.

I find it hilarious (and hypocritical) that those that argue most vocally in favor of restrictions on the ability to own a gun are the same ones that argue most vocally against any restrictions on access to abortion.

You have no clue.

Seven states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws banning assault weapons: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York. In addition, Minnesota and Virginia regulate assault weapons.

Seven states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws banning assault weapons: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York. In addition, Minnesota and Virginia regulate assault weapons.

 

When you have a California State Senator, Leland Yee, indicted for trying to smuggle full auto weapons bought from Islamic Radicals in the Phillipines, it kind of looks like the law was self serving as he was looking to make money smuggling guns into California that are legal in most other states. But as long as they were illegal in California he could get a premium return on his smuggling investment.

 

 

BTW the ban didn't save a single person in San Bernadino.