Good, glad to see the concept getting support and picking up steam.

John Paul Stevens (SCOTUS JUSTICE retired): Repeal the Second Amendment

The New York Times http://tinyurl.com/y7y5jauf

On 3/27/2018 3:45 PM, Dove Tail wrote:
Good, glad to see the concept getting support and picking up steam.

John Paul Stevens (SCOTUS JUSTICE retired): Repeal the Second Amendment

The New York Times http://tinyurl.com/y7y5jauf


https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/27/polit...ent/index.html



--
Maggie

On 3/27/2018 at 4:02:28 PM, Muggles wrote:


On 3/27/2018 3:45 PM, Dove Tail wrote:
Good, glad to see the concept getting support and picking up steam.

John Paul Stevens (SCOTUS JUSTICE retired): Repeal the Second
Amendment

The New York Times http://tinyurl.com/y7y5jauf



https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/27/polit...ent/index.html


Funny, the opinion of the "Digital Director, CNN Politics" versus the
opinion of the Republican appointed, third longest serving Supreme
Court Justice (12,611 days), tough call. LOL!

It is gratifying to know you gun strokers are running scared. Firearms
changes are coming as is constitutional and leadership change.

Civilian ownership of Semi-automatic weapons and others with detachable
magazines and hand guns of all kinds (not just semi-automatic, I have
modified my views) will become a thing of the past.

The firearm and constitutional changes might take a while, but the
leadership changes are on the horizon.

On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 7:21:45 PM UTC-4, Dove Tail wrote:
On 3/27/2018 at 4:02:28 PM, Muggles wrote:


On 3/27/2018 3:45 PM, Dove Tail wrote:
Good, glad to see the concept getting support and picking up steam.

John Paul Stevens (SCOTUS JUSTICE retired): Repeal the Second
Amendment

The New York Times http://tinyurl.com/y7y5jauf



https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/27/polit...ent/index.html


Funny, the opinion of the "Digital Director, CNN Politics" versus the
opinion of the Republican appointed, third longest serving Supreme
Court Justice (12,611 days), tough call. LOL!

It is gratifying to know you gun strokers are running scared. Firearms
changes are coming as is constitutional and leadership change.

Civilian ownership of Semi-automatic weapons and others with detachable
magazines and hand guns of all kinds (not just semi-automatic, I have
modified my views) will become a thing of the past.

SwallowBeak, the gun grabber finally fesses up. Yesterday it was just semi-autos, today its all handguns. Lying shyster.

Rofl

On 3/27/2018 6:21 PM, Dove Tail wrote:
On 3/27/2018 at 4:02:28 PM, Muggles wrote:


On 3/27/2018 3:45 PM, Dove Tail wrote:
Good, glad to see the concept getting support and picking up steam.

John Paul Stevens (SCOTUS JUSTICE retired): Repeal the Second
Amendment

The New York Times http://tinyurl.com/y7y5jauf



https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/27/polit...ent/index.html


Funny, the opinion of the "Digital Director, CNN Politics" versus the
opinion of the Republican appointed, third longest serving Supreme
Court Justice (12,611 days), tough call. LOL!

It is gratifying to know you gun strokers are running scared. Firearms
changes are coming as is constitutional and leadership change.

You've got me mixed up with someone who cares about what you think. I
don't own a gun, but if I wanted to own a gun I would. Then I would
practice how to use that gun until I mastered it, and then I might want
to try a different gun.

But, at this particular time, I don't want a gun. That could change.

Another thing ... what I find interesting is that CNN actually said in
that article that repealing the second amendment really is not something
that is going to happen, and they are said to be the most liberal of the
liberals MSM. IF they are saying that, you must be the one who is
running scared, all puffed up, pounding on your chest like a peacock.

Keep strutting all you want, but the second amendment isn't going to go
anywhere anytime soon.

Civilian ownership of Semi-automatic weapons and others with detachable
magazines and hand guns of all kinds (not just semi-automatic, I have
modified my views) will become a thing of the past.

Are you a prophet, now?

The firearm and constitutional changes might take a while, but the
leadership changes are on the horizon.

Leaders come and they go, but our constitution is still around.

--
Maggie

On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 18:27:35 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:


SwallowBeak, the gun grabber finally fesses up. Yesterday it was just semi-autos, today its all handguns. Lying shyster.

Rofl

Dove has been very clear that he wants to ban all guns. He even has a
thread saying it. They just play the "sensible gun control" card to
keep us from laughing them off the stage.

Stevens' comment only demonstrates why we have 9 justices on the
SCOTUS and why it is important who we put there.
Trump probably has one more pick left and maybe 2. If you and Dove get
your wish, those would be Pence's and he is to the right of Trump.
I would expect Pence to sent up pro gun, pro life, anti gay, zealots.

On 3/27/2018 at 8:57:47 PM, Muggles wrote:


On 3/27/2018 6:21 PM, Dove Tail wrote:

The firearm and constitutional changes might take a while, but the
leadership changes are on the horizon.

Leaders come and they go, but our constitution is still around.

Yes, the Constitution is "still around", but it has been amended
numerous times and it will be amended again. Count on it.

On 3/27/2018 at 9:46:37 PM, wrote:


Dove has been very clear that he wants to ban all guns. He even has a
thread saying it.


My advocacy is for the elimination of civilian owned semi-automatic and
other weapons with detachable magazines.

Yesterday, after extensive consideration, I have modified my position
and would also eliminate the vast majority of civilian owned sidearms.
There *might* be a case for civilian sidearms for those who qualify for
a concealed carry permit, security professionals, etc.

My desire to modify the constitution and eliminate the second amendment
has nothing to do with "banning all guns". It has more to do with
eliminating the silliness and difficulty associated with national gun
control.

No, I do not consider the second amendment to be sacred.





--
"In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place."

"Truth Sounds Like Hate To Those Who Hate The Truth"

On 3/28/2018 8:41 AM, Dove Tail wrote:
On 3/27/2018 at 9:46:37 PM, wrote:


Dove has been very clear that he wants to ban all guns. He even has a
thread saying it.


My advocacy is for the elimination of civilian owned semi-automatic and
other weapons with detachable magazines.

Ignorance is bliss and therefore you must be one happy camper. A .22
caliber rifle with a tubular magazine, non-detachable, can hold perhaps
a maximum 18 rounds of ammunition (.22 short). A .22 caliber Ruger,
with a standard detachable box magazine hold 10 rounds. Care to explain
the logic here?

Also add to the mix the rarity in which a .22 caliber rifle is used in a
crime of violence by anyone.

Yesterday, after extensive consideration, I have modified my position
and would also eliminate the vast majority of civilian owned sidearms.
There *might* be a case for civilian sidearms for those who qualify for
a concealed carry permit, security professionals, etc.

My desire to modify the constitution and eliminate the second amendment
has nothing to do with "banning all guns". It has more to do with
eliminating the silliness and difficulty associated with national gun
control.

Which you propose to cure with MORE gun control legislation. While you
were deep in thought pondering whether or not you would allow the common
man to possess a handgun, did you consider

1. The overwhelming number of crimes of violence using a firearm are
committed by criminals?

2. Criminals (felons primarily, but domestic abusers as well) are
already prohibited by law from possessing them, but yet they do possess
them.

3. There are already so many firearms out there (for good, bad or
otherwise) attempting to confiscate them by any means would be
comparable to draining the lakes and waterways and turning them into
dust bowls.

4. When you study the existing laws - whether idiotic, Draconian or
reasonable - you have to ask yourself:

a) why haven't they been obeyed?
b) why haven't the penalties imposed by them been utilized?

5. Lastly, you do understand that criminals don't obey laws, correct?

Spare us the crap about "but if we remove the "bad" firearms from
upstanding citizens who will obey the law, we remove at least some of
the guns from the criminal element.

That logic argues that we should ban automobiles so that drunks and
reckless drivers don't have access to 4,000 lbs of killing machines.

No, I do not consider the second amendment to be sacred.

That's painfully obvious.

On 03/28/2018 09:41 AM, Dove Tail wrote:
Yesterday, after extensive consideration, I have modified my position
and would also eliminate the vast majority of civilian owned sidearms.
There*might* be a case for civilian sidearms for those who qualify for
a concealed carry permit, security professionals, etc.

Hypothetically speaking, let's say you're a weaponless libtard.Â* You wake up at 3am because some dindu-nuttins broke down your door.

What do you do while you wait 10-30 minutes for police to arrive?

Do you offer the dindus a beer and a snack while you wait?

Will the police entire your house to arrest the dindus or will they wait outside for the dindus to leave?

Will you wish you had a decent handgun to defend yourself?

On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 12:47:06 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 18:27:35 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:


SwallowBeak, the gun grabber finally fesses up. Yesterday it was just semi-autos, today its all handguns. Lying shyster.

Rofl

Dove has been very clear that he wants to ban all guns. He even has a
thread saying it. They just play the "sensible gun control" card to
keep us from laughing them off the stage.

Stevens' comment only demonstrates why we have 9 justices on the
SCOTUS and why it is important who we put there.
Trump probably has one more pick left and maybe 2. If you and Dove get
your wish, those would be Pence's and he is to the right of Trump.
I would expect Pence to sent up pro gun, pro life, anti gay, zealots.


Those SC picks may be the only lasting effect Trump has, so I hope
he or Pence gets more on there. I expect an
extreme backlash, starting in Nov, that will put a lot more Dems in
Congress and the WH will be lost in 2020 and then they will more than
undo most of what Trump has done.

On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 08:48:45 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 12:47:06 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 18:27:35 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:


SwallowBeak, the gun grabber finally fesses up. Yesterday it was just semi-autos, today its all handguns. Lying shyster.

Rofl

Dove has been very clear that he wants to ban all guns. He even has a
thread saying it. They just play the "sensible gun control" card to
keep us from laughing them off the stage.

Stevens' comment only demonstrates why we have 9 justices on the
SCOTUS and why it is important who we put there.
Trump probably has one more pick left and maybe 2. If you and Dove get
your wish, those would be Pence's and he is to the right of Trump.
I would expect Pence to sent up pro gun, pro life, anti gay, zealots.


Those SC picks may be the only lasting effect Trump has, so I hope
he or Pence gets more on there. I expect an
extreme backlash, starting in Nov, that will put a lot more Dems in
Congress and the WH will be lost in 2020 and then they will more than
undo most of what Trump has done.

You really can't "undo" SCOTUS appointments. You have to wait for them
to die.,

On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 12:03:54 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 08:48:45 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 12:47:06 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 18:27:35 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:


SwallowBeak, the gun grabber finally fesses up. Yesterday it was just semi-autos, today its all handguns. Lying shyster.

Rofl

Dove has been very clear that he wants to ban all guns. He even has a
thread saying it. They just play the "sensible gun control" card to
keep us from laughing them off the stage.

Stevens' comment only demonstrates why we have 9 justices on the
SCOTUS and why it is important who we put there.
Trump probably has one more pick left and maybe 2. If you and Dove get
your wish, those would be Pence's and he is to the right of Trump.
I would expect Pence to sent up pro gun, pro life, anti gay, zealots.


Those SC picks may be the only lasting effect Trump has, so I hope
he or Pence gets more on there. I expect an
extreme backlash, starting in Nov, that will put a lot more Dems in
Congress and the WH will be lost in 2020 and then they will more than
undo most of what Trump has done.

You really can't "undo" SCOTUS appointments. You have to wait for them
to die.,

That was precisely my point. IDK where the appointment for life comes
from, do you? There really should be a mandatory retirement age.

On 3/28/2018 8:04 AM, Dove Tail wrote:
On 3/27/2018 at 8:57:47 PM, Muggles wrote:


On 3/27/2018 6:21 PM, Dove Tail wrote:

The firearm and constitutional changes might take a while, but the
leadership changes are on the horizon.

Leaders come and they go, but our constitution is still around.

Yes, the Constitution is "still around", but it has been amended
numerous times and it will be amended again. Count on it.


The last time it was amended to deny a right to its citizens didn't work
out too well. Prohibition didn't work.

--
Maggie

On 3/28/2018 at 9:34:25 AM, Muggles wrote:


On 3/28/2018 8:04 AM, Dove Tail wrote:
Yes, the Constitution is "still around", but it has been amended
numerous times and it will be amended again. Count on it.



The last time it was amended to deny a right to its citizens didn't
work out too well. Prohibition didn't work.


Thanks for trying to draw a false equivalence, but, I am willing to
take the chance.


--
"In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place."

"Truth Sounds Like Hate To Those Who Hate The Truth"

On 3/28/2018 8:57 AM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
On 3/28/2018 8:41 AM, Dove Tail wrote:
On 3/27/2018 at 9:46:37 PM, wrote:


Dove has been very clear that he wants to ban all guns. He even has a
thread saying it.


My advocacy is for the elimination of civilian owned semi-automatic and
other weapons with detachable magazines.

Ignorance is bliss and therefore you must be one happy camper.Â* A .22
caliber rifle with a tubular magazine, non-detachable, can hold perhaps
a maximum 18 rounds of ammunition (.22 short).Â* A .22 caliber Ruger,
with a standard detachable box magazine hold 10 rounds.Â* Care to explain
the logic here?

Also add to the mix the rarity in which a .22 caliber rifle is used in a
crime of violence by anyone.

Yesterday, after extensive consideration, I have modified my position
and would also eliminate the vast majority of civilian owned sidearms.
There *might* be a case for civilian sidearms for those who qualify for
a concealed carry permit, security professionals, etc.

My desire to modify the constitution and eliminate the second amendment
has nothing to do with "banning all guns".Â* It has more to do with
eliminating the silliness and difficulty associated with national gun
control.

Which you propose to cure with MORE gun control legislation.Â* While you
were deep in thought pondering whether or not you would allow the common
man to possess a handgun, did you consider

1. The overwhelming number of crimes of violence using a firearm are
committed by criminals?

2. Criminals (felons primarily, but domestic abusers as well) are
already prohibited by law from possessing them, but yet they do possess
them.

3. There are already so many firearms out there (for good, bad or
otherwise) attempting to confiscate them by any means would be
comparable to draining the lakes and waterways and turning them into
dust bowls.

4. When you study the existing laws - whether idiotic, Draconian or
reasonable - you have to ask yourself:

Â*Â*Â*Â*a) why haven't they been obeyed?
Â*Â*Â*Â*b) why haven't the penalties imposed by them been utilized?

5.Â* Lastly, you do understand that criminals don't obey laws, correct?

Spare us the crap about "but if we remove the "bad" firearms from
upstanding citizens who will obey the law, we remove at least some of
the guns from the criminal element.

That logic argues that we should ban automobiles so that drunks and
reckless drivers don't have access to 4,000 lbs of killing machines.

No, I do not consider the second amendment to be sacred.

That's painfully obvious.

+100

--
Maggie

On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 09:13:09 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 12:03:54 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 08:48:45 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 12:47:06 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 18:27:35 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:


SwallowBeak, the gun grabber finally fesses up. Yesterday it was just semi-autos, today its all handguns. Lying shyster.

Rofl

Dove has been very clear that he wants to ban all guns. He even has a
thread saying it. They just play the "sensible gun control" card to
keep us from laughing them off the stage.

Stevens' comment only demonstrates why we have 9 justices on the
SCOTUS and why it is important who we put there.
Trump probably has one more pick left and maybe 2. If you and Dove get
your wish, those would be Pence's and he is to the right of Trump.
I would expect Pence to sent up pro gun, pro life, anti gay, zealots.


Those SC picks may be the only lasting effect Trump has, so I hope
he or Pence gets more on there. I expect an
extreme backlash, starting in Nov, that will put a lot more Dems in
Congress and the WH will be lost in 2020 and then they will more than
undo most of what Trump has done.

You really can't "undo" SCOTUS appointments. You have to wait for them
to die.,

That was precisely my point. IDK where the appointment for life comes
from, do you? There really should be a mandatory retirement age.

James Madison?

On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 11:34:25 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 3/28/2018 8:04 AM, Dove Tail wrote:
On 3/27/2018 at 8:57:47 PM, Muggles wrote:


On 3/27/2018 6:21 PM, Dove Tail wrote:

The firearm and constitutional changes might take a while, but the
leadership changes are on the horizon.

Leaders come and they go, but our constitution is still around.

Yes, the Constitution is "still around", but it has been amended
numerous times and it will be amended again. Count on it.


The last time it was amended to deny a right to its citizens didn't work
out too well. Prohibition didn't work.

I think that is correct. Every other amendment expanded the rights of
the citizens, except maybe the 20th that limited the right of a person
to be president for life.

On 3/28/2018 at 3:32:23 PM, wrote:


I think that is correct. Every other amendment expanded the rights of
the citizens, except maybe the 20th that limited the right of a person
to be president for life.

I love the smell of fear in the air and blood in the water coming from
the gun strokers.

--
"In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place."

"Truth Sounds Like Hate To Those Who Hate The Truth"

On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 16:50:46 -0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"
wrote:

On 3/28/2018 at 9:34:25 AM, Muggles wrote:


On 3/28/2018 8:04 AM, Dove Tail wrote:
Yes, the Constitution is "still around", but it has been amended
numerous times and it will be amended again. Count on it.



The last time it was amended to deny a right to its citizens didn't
work out too well. Prohibition didn't work.


Thanks for trying to draw a false equivalence, but, I am willing to
take the chance.

I don't see anything false. You are proposing banning a product that
has always been legal and you want to make it illegal.
insert hyperbolic rhetoric justifying it here
That is ironic when you consider that most of the gun deaths are
surrounding the second round of prohibition, the unconstitutional drug
war. (they didn't even bother with an amendment this time)
Even then, the knee jerk reaction was to regulate machine guns and
silencers, (NFA34) when they represented a microscopic percentage of
the murders. Most of the gangsters had handguns.

On 3/28/2018 at 3:39:01 PM, wrote:


On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 16:50:46 -0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"

I don't see anything false. You are proposing banning a product that
has always been legal and you want to make it illegal.
insert hyperbolic rhetoric justifying it here
That is ironic when you consider that most of the gun deaths are
surrounding the second round of prohibition, the unconstitutional drug
war. (they didn't even bother with an amendment this time)
Even then, the knee jerk reaction was to regulate machine guns and
silencers, (NFA34) when they represented a microscopic percentage of
the murders. Most of the gangsters had handguns.


More red herrings and specious arguments.

Still supporting a constitutional amendment, as will many, many
millions of Americans as the mass shootings continue.

On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 11:11:54 -0400, Morph
wrote:


Will you wish

The Morpher strikes again! Nymshifting nimrod!

On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 18:29:04 -0400, wrote:

James Madison?
....
--
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.-- James Madison

On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 11:34:25 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

The last time it was amended to deny a right to its citizens didn't work
out too well. Prohibition didn't work.

Because government tried to regulate the people.

Amendments 1 through 10 protect the ****-ants from government
intrusion into daily lives, that protect us from tyranny.

Aside it is good to have some guns in each hand.
--
I like Guns and Titties

On 03/28/2018 10:03 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 08:48:45 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 12:47:06 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 18:27:35 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:


SwallowBeak, the gun grabber finally fesses up. Yesterday it was just semi-autos, today its all handguns. Lying shyster.

Rofl

Dove has been very clear that he wants to ban all guns. He even has a
thread saying it. They just play the "sensible gun control" card to
keep us from laughing them off the stage.

Stevens' comment only demonstrates why we have 9 justices on the
SCOTUS and why it is important who we put there.
Trump probably has one more pick left and maybe 2. If you and Dove get
your wish, those would be Pence's and he is to the right of Trump.
I would expect Pence to sent up pro gun, pro life, anti gay, zealots.


Those SC picks may be the only lasting effect Trump has, so I hope
he or Pence gets more on there. I expect an
extreme backlash, starting in Nov, that will put a lot more Dems in
Congress and the WH will be lost in 2020 and then they will more than
undo most of what Trump has done.

You really can't "undo" SCOTUS appointments. You have to wait for them
to die.,


I think they can be impeached but in the case of Ginsburg patience may
work better. The wise Latina is fairly young but we can hope she really
gets into cheese nachos with extra cholesterol on the side.

On 03/28/2018 10:34 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 3/28/2018 8:04 AM, Dove Tail wrote:
On 3/27/2018 at 8:57:47 PM, Muggles wrote:


On 3/27/2018 6:21 PM, Dove Tail wrote:

The firearm and constitutional changes might take a while, but the
leadership changes are on the horizon.

Leaders come and they go, but our constitution is still around.

Yes, the Constitution is "still around", but it has been amended
numerous times and it will be amended again. Count on it.


The last time it was amended to deny a right to its citizens didn't work
out too well. Prohibition didn't work.


Giving people rights in the 15th and 26th hasn't worked too well either.
The jury is still out on the 19th.

On 29/03/2018 00:59, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 11:34:25 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

The last time it was amended to deny a right to its citizens didn't work
out too well. Prohibition didn't work.

Because government tried to regulate the people.

Amendments 1 through 10 protect the ****-ants from government
intrusion into daily lives, that protect us from tyranny.

Aside it is good to have some guns in each hand.

Any UK citizen can own a shotgun if they are clean and pass the strict
checks and can prove good reason to own one (target/clay pigeon etc).

There are about 2 million legal UK gun owners and many have several
guns, we just don't want people carrying them around in public.
No hand guns allowed anyway.


--
Bod

On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 22:49:40 -0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"
wrote:

On 3/28/2018 at 3:39:01 PM, wrote:


On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 16:50:46 -0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"

I don't see anything false. You are proposing banning a product that
has always been legal and you want to make it illegal.
insert hyperbolic rhetoric justifying it here
That is ironic when you consider that most of the gun deaths are
surrounding the second round of prohibition, the unconstitutional drug
war. (they didn't even bother with an amendment this time)
Even then, the knee jerk reaction was to regulate machine guns and
silencers, (NFA34) when they represented a microscopic percentage of
the murders. Most of the gangsters had handguns.


More red herrings and specious arguments.

Still supporting a constitutional amendment, as will many, many
millions of Americans as the mass shootings continue.

That seems to be defined as any fact that does not prop up your
ridiculous case.