Is it time to Repeal The 2ND Amendment? Michael Moore says so

jpk said:
If you break into another persons house, do you think you have a right to anything in their house let alone have a right to defend yourself from the home owner defending their property/home/family?

You left your rights at the property line....

I'm sure you can extrapolate from there
Click to expand...
1dd4f4cc5083ecdc9a64f7bff2e86264.jpg
 
G Port said:
well if Michael Moore says so, it must be time. Only if Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos agree though.
Click to expand...
I know you can't get near Bezos or Gates without being in range of a firearm dedicated to protecting them. I wonder what sort of "not available to the ordinaries" protection Michael Moore spouts his "just let them say no" diatribe from.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
I know you can't get near Bezos or Gates without being in range of a firearm dedicated to protecting them. I wonder what sort of "not available to the ordinaries" protection Michael Moore spouts his "just let them say no" diatribe from.
Click to expand...
it is really time to move ahead with all the appropriate legislation to disarm all the bodyguards and rest of federal and privatized schmucks that operate within unarmed citizens.
turn them into uk bobbies, give them rubber sticks and take away all THEIR guns. that would be nice.

the only way to make rich and privileged to shut up is to make them exposed and vulnerable with no protection - to make them be like everybody else how they want them to make.
 
paul73 said:
it is really time to move ahead with all the appropriate legislation to disarm all the bodyguards and rest of federal and privatized schmucks that operate within unarmed citizens.
turn them into uk bobbies, give them rubber sticks and take away all THEIR guns. that would be nice.

the only way to make rich and privileged to shut up is to make them exposed and vulnerable with no protection - to make them be like everybody else how they want them to make.
Click to expand...
The obstacle to overcome is the retired LEO exemption. Taking away gun privileges for LEOs is fighting words. Best to also get rid of any special off-duty gun exemptions except for those actively working undercover/joining a gang as a double agent/et.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
I know you can't get near Bezos or Gates without being in range of a firearm dedicated to protecting them. I wonder what sort of "not available to the ordinaries" protection Michael Moore spouts his "just let them say no" diatribe from.
Click to expand...

Michael has that ballistic lard thing happening
 
timbo said:
this....forever. You can't repeal a God given/natural right...that's like repealing a basic instinct, part of being a human.
Click to expand...
No, but you can repeal the right not to have armed individuals funded by your taxes use force against you if you exercise that right, in which case the term "right" is actually wrong.
 
Woodsloafer said:
It's time to repeal shitty school designs (security-wise) and inadequate armed protection at schools. There should be standards for design, access, security/surveillance systems, etc. that are integrated into all school designs without making them prison-like, I firmly believe it can be done. This instead of individual committees/town/cities guiding architects/engineers on how pretty/unique they want their schools to look - they can still be unique but have the required design elements to make them secure.
Click to expand...
Read it and weep. It's probably already been done. If there's one thing MSBA does well, it's putting out regulations.

Statutes & Regulations | Massachusetts School Building Authority

The Massachusetts School Building Authority ("MSBA") is a quasi-independent government agency created by the Legislature and former State Treasurer Tim Cahill to reform the process of funding capital improvement projects in the Commonwealth’s public schools. The MSBA strives to create...
www.massschoolbuildings.org

I'm sure every other state has similar guidance, but I live in MA, so...
 
jpk said:
Too many people fail to actually comprehend what MOST of the bill of rights actually says let alone does.

1A, 2A, 4A, 5A and others are a restriction on government

Your rights are primarily a function of the RESTRAINT of government

The american revolution was a war fought against an arbitrary all powerful central government

Our founding documents and constitution were written to PREVENT the creation of an arbitrary all powerful central government.
Click to expand...

Gubmint spanked freedom loving patriots pretty hard in 1934, then again in 1968 and 1986. Don't kid yourselves. The 4th NFA revision will be coming shortly. Question how will it be done?
 
jpk said:
Too many people fail to actually comprehend what MOST of the bill of rights actually says let alone does.

1A, 2A, 4A, 5A and others are a restriction on government

Your rights are primarily a function of the RESTRAINT of government

The american revolution was a war fought against an arbitrary all powerful central government

Our founding documents and constitution were written to PREVENT the creation of an arbitrary all powerful central government.
Click to expand...
exactly...
 
G4Y4HK said:
I hear that argument a lot. Your right to self defense is given by God and the gubmint can't restrict it that's what the 2A says. Then how come illegal immigrants and felons who have done their time don't have the right to armed self defense?
Click to expand...
Because the protections in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution only apply to US citizens in good standing. The Bill of Rights is there to ensure that the Federal Government does not contravene the natural rights of the citizens. It does NOT, and was never even implied to, “grant” rights. People "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” and the Bill of Rights was simply affixed to the Constitution to make it clear what were some of the more important rights of Citizens people that the the Federal Government could not f**k with. Illegal immigrants are not Citizens and convicted felons have forfeited some (or almost all) of their Citizenship by the nature of their crime(s). Thus they do not enjoy the protections guaranteed under the Bill of Rights.

Note that it wasn’t until passage of the 14th amendment and its Due Process clause that SCOTUS (beginning in the 1920s) developed the “Incorporation Doctrine”, through which certain specific parts of the Bill of Rights are made applicable to the states. In fact, the 2nd was not made applicable to the states until 2010 with the McDonald v. Chicago decision. As late as 1876 (in U.S. v. Cruikshank) SCOTUS found that the 1st and 2nd amendments did not apply to the sates.

ETA. @Rob Boudrie has pointed out that this is not correct. There is nothing in the Bill of Rights that restricts it to Citizens. It applies to “persons” and “people” residing in the United Sttates. The note about “Incorporation” is still correct.
 
Last edited:
jpk said:
It will only happen if people like you fail to call squishy republicant senators offices and voice your opposition to it and tell them you will fund a primary challenge even though you dont live in their state
Click to expand...
At this point in our history, I don't think that will be enough. We are almost at the point of the ballot box being ineffectual (for many reasons...remember the 2020 election?).
 
jpk said:
That remains to be seen this coming november

If turds fail to abide by elections and get away with it I wouldnt be surprised to see people begin to take things into their own hands.

History has shown repeatedly what happens sooner than later to tyrants that refuse to relinquish power and fail to stop abusing innocent people.
Click to expand...
They won't make the same mistake again. Last time DC was unsecured so braveheart MAGA shaman and his army rolled up into the capitol uncontested. This election, there will definitely be heavy national guard presence, multiple layers of barricades and militarized perimeters around all the federal government buildings.
 
Helost all credibility during his divorce hearings when his wealth came out.

Michael Moore also presented six 2011 media reports that harangued him for always demonizing the wealthy and being such an outspoken advocate for the poor while living in such an ostentatious estate.
And finally, Michael Moore frustratingly told the court that the expansion cost five times more than his wife said it was going to.
"(Glynn) unilaterally wasted a large percentage of the marital fund," wrote one of Moore's attorneys.
Michael Moore's concerns about his humble reputation were well-founded by the views of another local, Gary Tracy, owner of Bellaire Bait and Tackle.

"He criticizes capitalism, but capitalism made him rich," said Tracy. "Why he decided to live in this conservative area, I have no idea."
Click to expand...
 
We should just ban bread and other carbs from fat slobs like this. If the founding fathers knew how much a slob would cost us in health care expenses they would have never thought that people should just be alowed to eat what they want. So for the betterment of society we should ban sugar and carbs from extremely gross looking slobs. As a matter of fact calling Moore a gross looking slob is an insult to slobs everywhere.
 
G4Y4HK said:
Gubmint spanked freedom loving patriots pretty hard in 1934, then again in 1968 and 1986. Don't kid yourselves. The 4th NFA revision will be coming shortly. Question how will it be done?
Click to expand...

G4Y4HK said:
They won't make the same mistake again. Last time DC was unsecured so braveheart MAGA shaman and his army rolled up into the capitol uncontested. This election, there will definitely be heavy national guard presence, multiple layers of barricades and militarized perimeters around all the federal government buildings.
Click to expand...

You're a clever, pro-China lefty troll. You don't fool me.
 
1616659338-605c438adb234.jpg
 
cathouse01 said:
Because the protections in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution only apply to US citizens in good standing.
Click to expand...
Not true, although that was the position the Commonwealth argued in Fletcher v. Haas.

If it were true, the police would not need warrants to search the homes of non-citizens, they would not have a right to a jury trial, the government could regulate the religions they are allowed to practice, etc.

And, of course, not-citizens could not own handguns or large capacity rifles in MA. That was the point we argued against, and won.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
Not true, although that was the position the Commonwealth argued in Fletcher v. Haas.

If it were true, the police would not need warrants to search the homes of non-citizens, they would not have a right to a jury trial, the government could regulate the religions they are allowed to practice, etc.

And, of course, not-citizens could not own handguns or large capacity rifles in MA. That was the point we argued against, and won.
Click to expand...
Yup, you are correct and I was wrong. The rights protected under the Constitution apply to “persons” and “people” - not citizens. I fell into a common trap that the Bill of Rights applies only to Citizens, but there is no such restriction.
 

Similar threads

Tyrant NY judge says Second Amendment doesn't exist in her court room
2 3 4
Replies
95
Views
3K
paul73
paul73
The First Amendment Is Getting In The Way Of Government Removing Posts It Doesn't Agree With
Replies
20
Views
424
Uzi2
U
Concerns Grow Over ISIS-K Attack in the US; Former Top General Says, 'I Think This Is Inevitable'
Replies
18
Views
442
G4Y4HK
G
SWAT team responding to Arkansas shopping mall, police ask public to avoid the area: Officials called it “an incident that is active"
Replies
5
Views
231
TJ4
T
Propaganda. This trans person is insanely pro-second amendment.
Replies
8
Views
419
Bigfudge16
Bigfudge16
Back
Top Bottom