Texas law professor calls for repeal ...

Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second Amendment

There are 12127 comments on the BizPacReview.com story from Nov 17, 2013, titled Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second Amendment. In it, BizPacReview.com reports that:

A professor at the Texas A&M University School of Law claims that the Second Amendment should be shelved and replaced with something else.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at BizPacReview.com.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#10167 Jun 16, 2014
Yep2 wrote:
I see the gun grabbers have lost interest in that absurd Everytown "school shootings" list.
Another gun grabber scam down the toilet.
Really?

More like after I posted this challenge...
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
Everytown for Gun Safety reports that there have been at least 74 school shootings since Sandy Hook.

The gunner crowd claims that some of those shootings "don't count" - that just because I gun was fired on school property, frightening students and their parents, they aren't really "school shootings."

So gunners - how many DO "count"? How many of the 74 school shootings Everytown reported were actual school shootings according to your definition?

It's easy to cherry pick a few of them and say they "don't count." Do you have the integrity to say how many of the DO "count"?
...all you gun nuts fled the subject.

Hmmmm..... I wonder why....

LMAO!

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#10168 Jun 16, 2014
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>You advocate for background checks and restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms but you denounce an I.D. check and verification of citizenship for the right to vote. And the right to vote isn't spelled out nearly as clearly as the 2nd amendment. Go figure......
A background check wouldn't prevent you from owning guns and defending yourself.

No restrictions I've advocated would prevent you from owning guns and defending yourself.

Nothing I've suggested has been ruled unconstitutional by any court.

But photo ID requirements most certainly prevent millions of Americans from voting (as is the intent of those laws) and have been uniformly ruled unconstitutional by the courts.

Yet somehow you can't seem to comprehend that distinction. Go figure...

LMAO!

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#10169 Jun 16, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong, and Chicago Illinois has proven that stricker gun control laws cause crime to increase and thrive since the criminals know that law abiding citizens are no threat to them and they cant protect themselves
How come every time I ask you for evidence to back up these asinine assertions, you run away only to come back later and regurgitate the same hackneyed talking points?

It's almost like you know you can't answer.

It's almost like you know that ISN'T any evidence to support your asinine assertions.

LMAO!

But please - feel free to prove me wrong.

Because I know you won't. You won't even try.

Because you CAN'T!
Live free keep trying

Martinsburg, WV

#10170 Jun 16, 2014
No matter what crazy people do you can't change them or know what there going to do next

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#10171 Jun 16, 2014
Live free keep trying wrote:
No matter what crazy people do you can't change them or know what there going to do next
Yes, let's do nothing instead of implementing things that we know will work.

You present the gun nut argument in a nut-shell - better to do nothing than risk inconveniencing a gun nut.
Live free keep trying

Martinsburg, WV

#10172 Jun 16, 2014
People like you are crazy and scare others around. You will be the one to do something before anyone else would

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#10173 Jun 16, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
How come every time I ask you for evidence to back up these asinine assertions, you run away only to come back later and regurgitate the same hackneyed talking points?
It's almost like you know you can't answer.
It's almost like you know that ISN'T any evidence to support your asinine assertions.
LMAO!
But please - feel free to prove me wrong.
Because I know you won't. You won't even try.
Because you CAN'T!
Obviously you want to prove to everyone you have a comprehension problem since the links have been posted several time and you remove them from your reply besides which you know sinks your asinine claims.

Otis McDonald -- Everyday people can make a difference



McDonald v. Chicago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chic...

Strict Gun Laws in Chicago Can’t Stem Fatal Shots

By MONICA DAVEY

Published: January 29, 2013

CHICAGO — Not a single gun shop can be found in this city because they are outlawed. Handguns were banned in Chicago for decades, too, until 2010, when the United States Supreme Court ruled that was going too far, leading city leaders to settle for restrictions some describe as the closest they could get legally to a ban without a ban. Despite a continuing legal fight, Illinois remains the only state in the nation with no provision to let private citizens carry guns in public.

And yet Chicago, a city with no civilian gun ranges and bans on both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, finds itself laboring to stem a flood of gun violence that contributed to more than 500 homicides last year and at least 40 killings already in 2013, including a fatal shooting of a 15-year-old girl on Tuesday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/us/strict-c...

Final 2013 Totals

http://heyjackass.com/category/2013/

Final 2012 Totals

http://heyjackass.com/category/2012/

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#10174 Jun 16, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
A background check wouldn't prevent you from owning guns and defending yourself.
No restrictions I've advocated would prevent you from owning guns and defending yourself.
Nothing I've suggested has been ruled unconstitutional by any court.
But photo ID requirements most certainly prevent millions of Americans from voting (as is the intent of those laws) and have been uniformly ruled unconstitutional by the courts.
Yet somehow you can't seem to comprehend that distinction. Go figure...
LMAO!
Liberal Democrat are the ones that have issues with requiring photo ID for voting and keeping the election clean and fair so one would believe that means Liberal Demcorats should have issues with background checks too.
Yep2

Roy, WA

#10175 Jun 16, 2014
.all you gun nuts fled the subject.
----------

I fled the subject of Obama nearly running into a jihadi ambush, and the media hiding it as a "school shooting"?

Your idea of a challenge is my idea of flushing a toilet, Dodger Dan.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#10176 Jun 16, 2014
Live free keep trying wrote:
People like you are crazy and scare others around. You will be the one to do something before anyone else would
People like you are crazy and scare others around. You will be the one to do something before anyone else would

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#10177 Jun 16, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Obviously you want to prove to everyone you have a comprehension problem since the links have been posted several time and you remove them from your reply besides which you know sinks your asinine claims.
Otis McDonald -- Everyday people can make a difference
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =kUP0j4LiuK4XX
McDonald v. Chicago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chic...
Strict Gun Laws in Chicago Can’t Stem Fatal Shots
By MONICA DAVEY
Published: January 29, 2013
CHICAGO — Not a single gun shop can be found in this city because they are outlawed. Handguns were banned in Chicago for decades, too, until 2010, when the United States Supreme Court ruled that was going too far, leading city leaders to settle for restrictions some describe as the closest they could get legally to a ban without a ban. Despite a continuing legal fight, Illinois remains the only state in the nation with no provision to let private citizens carry guns in public.
And yet Chicago, a city with no civilian gun ranges and bans on both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, finds itself laboring to stem a flood of gun violence that contributed to more than 500 homicides last year and at least 40 killings already in 2013, including a fatal shooting of a 15-year-old girl on Tuesday.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/us/strict-c...
Final 2013 Totals
http://heyjackass.com/category/2013/
Final 2012 Totals
http://heyjackass.com/category/2012/
Your links are irrelevant since none of them address the fact that a patchwork of laws don't work so we need a consistent national law.

You can continue to post irrelevant, feel-good articles but none of them addresses that simple fact, so why should I waste any time responding to them as if they are relevant?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#10178 Jun 16, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Liberal Democrat are the ones that have issues with requiring photo ID for voting and keeping the election clean and fair so one would believe that means Liberal Demcorats should have issues with background checks too.
Another gunner who can't comprehend the difference between unconstitutional voter ID laws that violate voters rights and constitutional gun regulations that do not.

Opposition to the first and support of the second is a perfectly consistent and completely pro-freedom stance.

Too bad you have it completely backwards - you support the unconstituional suppression of the vote while objecting to the constitutional regulation of guns to expand our freedom of safety and freedom from fear.

Why do gunners hate America and liberty? Why?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#10179 Jun 16, 2014
Yep2 wrote:
.all you gun nuts fled the subject.
----------
I fled the subject of Obama nearly running into a jihadi ambush, and the media hiding it as a "school shooting"?
Your idea of a challenge is my idea of flushing a toilet, Dodger Dan.
Unresponsive and irrelevant.

How many of the 74 school shootings Everytown reported were actual school shootings according to your narrow definition?

How many?

It's easy to cherry pick a few of them and say they "don't count." Do you have the integrity to say how many of the DO "count"?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#10180 Jun 16, 2014
Yep2 wrote:
US v Miller clearly established that militia
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.[United States v.] Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

Justice Scalia
This Century
Heller Decision
from the Supreme Court of the United States

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#10181 Jun 16, 2014
Yep2 wrote:
I see the gun grabbers have lost interest in that absurd Everytown "school shootings" list.
You mean after you went 0-27 and the game was called because of your gross stupidity- especially when you insisted the guy walking into the library with a smoking AR-15 after killing a woman outside the building didn't count as a school shooter?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#10182 Jun 16, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Liberal Democrat are the ones that have issues with requiring photo ID
Civil libertarians have problems with right wing kooks insisting that government should be requiring photo IDs in order to vote.

The same right wing kooks who had such problems with women, native Americans, and black Americans from voting.

Do let us know when you get your proposed RF chips stapled to ears because you aren't happy with photo IDs.
Yep2

Roy, WA

#10183 Jun 16, 2014
Hey Whopper

Heller descends from Miller - which clearly states that militia may possess weapons "in common use at the time".

Obama's motorcade in Santa Monica nearly ran into a jihadi loaded for bear on Olymic Blvd., and the media his it as a "school shooting".

Keep floundering loser.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#10185 Jun 16, 2014
Yep2 wrote:
H
Obama's motorcade in Santa Monica .
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/06/08/art...
Yep2

Roy, WA

#10186 Jun 16, 2014
I got you cold Whopper - what a dunce you are.

Dangerous and unusual weapons?

All weapons are dangerous<

A "common" weapon is one that is not "unusual".

The citation in Miller from an even earlier one addresses ALL militia from the earliest times, not "when the FF signed the Constitution."

You pulled that out of your scabby behind.

The ruling says "at the time" not "at that time".

You must have been picking your nose in English class.
Yep2

Roy, WA

#10187 Jun 16, 2014
They don't want to talk about Obama nearly riding into a jihadi ambush - and the media covering it up as a "school shooting".

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Clinton blames Republican leaders for a 'paraly... 39 min payme 1,097
News Hillary Clinton wavers on Second Amendment righ... 7 hr Bert 1,560
News Letter: Second Amendment should be abolished Jul 23 Prep-for-Dep 6
News AG Healey's assault weapons order is an overdue... Jul 23 Get Out 3
News Shoot Down the Stupid Second Amendment (Dec '14) Jul 16 Prep-for-Dep 60
News Q&A: What are the firearms rules for the GOP co... Jul 13 Banned 2016 1
News What Paul Ryan wants in Donald Trumpa s vice-pr... Jul 13 spud 3
More from around the web