1 posted on
02/26/2018 6:04:05 AM PST by
Kaslin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-38 next last
To: Kaslin
In order to save the village, we had to destroy the village.
2 posted on
02/26/2018 6:05:28 AM PST by
sevlex
To: Kaslin
Asinine article. It is amazing that people get paid to be this stupid.
3 posted on
02/26/2018 6:08:47 AM PST by
ohioman
To: Kaslin
The right to self-defense doesn’t come from the state, and the state cannot take it away.
4 posted on
02/26/2018 6:09:54 AM PST by
I want the USA back
(Free Republic keeps me from going insane in a world that has chosen insanity over reason.)
To: Kaslin
Why don’t we just repeal XIV?
5 posted on
02/26/2018 6:10:19 AM PST by
Jim Noble
(Single payer is coming. Which kind do you like?)
To: Kaslin
He’s not that wrong.
We only need to add the phrase: “, except for liberals.”
6 posted on
02/26/2018 6:12:04 AM PST by
budj
(combat vet, 2nd of 3 generations)
To: Kaslin
The second amendment is every bit as important as the first amendment.
Every single bit.
Don’t touch either one. Ever.
7 posted on
02/26/2018 6:12:23 AM PST by
cba123
( Toi la nguoi My. Toi bay gio o Viet Nam.)
To: Kaslin
The United States needs a new amendment governing gun rights, and the only amendment that would likely have any chance of being approved would be one that returns the Second Amendment to the position the Founders envisioned, when it only applied to federal law. 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. But it would also ensure citizens in states where guns are valuedwhich, by the way, is most statesare guaranteed from ever having their gun rights taken from them by a Supreme Court controlled by left-wing justices. This guy fell out of the boat and somehow missed the water. His premise is false. The Bill of Rights was to protect the inalienable rights of all citizens of the USA. The Supreme Court was established to rule on the constitutionality of all laws, including states laws, where it pertains to the liberties of citizens.
He is confusing the stature of state law over federal law, pertaining to the original intent of the Constitution, with the universal protection of inalienable rights.
To: Kaslin
“For most issues, Americans are willing to accept such a model”
I doubt that. Repeal XIV.
9 posted on
02/26/2018 6:12:43 AM PST by
Jim Noble
(Single payer is coming. Which kind do you like?)
To: Blue Jays
"...Second Amendment..."
One should not need to periodically uproot family and friends to pursue better liberty and freedom in different pockets of the country. The United States of America should be patriotic and pro-America as a whole.
10 posted on
02/26/2018 6:13:32 AM PST by
Blue Jays
( Rock hard ~ Ride free)
To: Kaslin
Activist judges ignore the clear meaning of the current 2A and impose their "interpretation" on the country.
So let's dump it and write a NEW 2A - which the activist judges will honor (because it reflects their views).
NO THANKS! FO! Come and take it!
11 posted on
02/26/2018 6:16:31 AM PST by
grobdriver
(BUILD KATE'S WALL!)
To: Kaslin
“As the Parkland, Fla., school shooting revealed yet again, when it comes to firearms, the differences between Americans has become too monumental to overcome.”
Mark.. Missed. Again.
There is no divide. There is the law and there is lawless. The law allows us all to keep and bear arms. In all the states.
Most people want their speed limits removed too. But it’s the law so at the very least they have two parties to argue against: Those who oppose the idea and the Law.
The law states that I must own and bear a weapon.
12 posted on
02/26/2018 6:17:55 AM PST by
Celerity
To: Kaslin
The only change to the 2nd amendment I would accept is the deletion of the dependent clause at the beginning of the text.
13 posted on
02/26/2018 6:20:29 AM PST by
WayneS
(An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. - Winston Churchill)
To: Kaslin
You know, some of the older cultures had some pretty good crime deterrents. How about the threat of all fingers get cut off if you commit murder that is not self defense.
14 posted on
02/26/2018 6:20:59 AM PST by
jetson
To: Kaslin
To assure the preservation of gun rights, the American left must be destroyed. Until they are gone, they will never let up.
There are more of them than there are of us. They will prevail
16 posted on
02/26/2018 6:25:32 AM PST by
bert
(K.E.; N.P.; GOPc;WASP .... The Fourth Estate is the Fifth Column)
To: Kaslin
and the only amendment that would likely have any chance of being approved would be one that returns the Second Amendment to the position the Founders envisioned, when it only applied to federal law. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Any/all bizarre supreme court interpretations aside, a simple reading of the plain text of the Bill of Rights makes it clear that the First Amendment is the only one of the first eight that is intended to limit only the federal government. The 1st is the only amendment in the Bill of Rights which states: "Congress shall make no law...". The rest of them are simple declarations and they restrict the powers of all levels of government.
Limits on their own governmental powers is part of the "deal" the states signed on to when they ratified the Constitution.
17 posted on
02/26/2018 6:27:35 AM PST by
WayneS
(An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. - Winston Churchill)
To: Kaslin
Proof positive that the ability to think rationally is not a requirement to write for Townhall.
20 posted on
02/26/2018 6:34:35 AM PST by
Redbob
(W.W.J.B.D. - What Would Jack Bauer Do?)
To: Kaslin
The author admits liberals have no regard for the 2nd amendment and thinks if we come up with a replacement that will change. Truth is we get the government we deserve. It will always be up to we the people to defend our rights....with our guns if necessary!!!
21 posted on
02/26/2018 6:34:49 AM PST by
ontap
To: Kaslin
There is a way to abrogate the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment that requires neither a President nor a Congress nor a Supreme Court.
All it requires is gun hating judges & power hungry police chiefs enabled by state laws that say mental illness is whatever we say it is. Those adjudged by whatever authority to be mentally ill will have their firearms confiscated.
The most egregious example is California where the gun confiscation squad already has a name, a face, and a mission. It can be set in motion by anyone from a concerned relative to a personal enemy bent on revenge who goes to the police voicing their “fears” that somebody because of their mental state & their possession of guns represents a threat to all those around him.
Police goes to judge who issues warrant for confiscation, and the thing is done.
Temporary? Void after 60 days? Here’s your guns back, sorry for the inconvenience?
“Not bloody likely, mate.”
22 posted on
02/26/2018 6:36:31 AM PST by
elcid1970
("The Second Amendment is more important than Islam. Buy ammo.")
To: Kaslin
For years Ive considered "doing some writing," articles mostly, but, I tend to get to doing so much research on an issue in an effort to be accurate that the mood passes or I cant distill the information comprehensively enough for an article format.
Apparently Ive put far to much thought into the process because as of late it seems that any dumbass can get paid to talk about things they dont understand.
23 posted on
02/26/2018 6:37:24 AM PST by
gnarledmaw
(Hive minded liberals worship leaders, sovereign conservatives elect servants.)
To: Kaslin
I’ll play...
My new Second amendment: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Take the first clause out because liberals can’t read and understand basic English.
5.56mm
25 posted on
02/26/2018 6:38:48 AM PST by
M Kehoe
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-38 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson