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: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5599 Feb 6, 2014
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
WRONG! I don't have to find a damn thing. To back up what you claim
To back up my claim all I have to do is point to the 2nd Amendment and show you the blank spot were you say it says that you have the right to sell guns to anyone you please.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#5600 Feb 6, 2014
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
So you can't find it and instead want to move the goalposts?
You posted: "Underline the section that said common firearms can't be banned and post it."

Then I responded with: "You mean this part: "The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense."

Since "assault rifle" covers a whole class of semi-auto rifles, it would be a violation of the 2nd Amendment to ban them, would it not?????"

So in short....banning an entire class of firearm is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and VIOLATES THE 2nd AMENDMENT. The only one here who moved ANY goalposts was YOU, Short-bus.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5602 Feb 6, 2014
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
LMAO!!!!!!!!!! My sided are hurting AGAIN.
My post you responded to was post #5451: "Never said it did, fucktard. But it does start the independent clause of it.
Try again."
No mention of grammar ANYWHERE, dipshit!.
YOU WERE ASSERTING YOUR EXPERTISE, f*kstain!

I was saying you were no EXPERT, i.e.,

"Grammar and Punctuation: Independent vs. Dependent Clauses
www.aims.edu/.../independent-vs-depende...&am... ;
Aims Community College
Understanding the difference between independent and dependent clauses is important in understanding how to construct sentences and avoid fragments."

IE: You are no expert.
IE: you brought it up.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5603 Feb 6, 2014
Armed Veteran wrote:
And to prove your point that it DOESN'T give me that right, YOU have to show were it says I can't.
NO, AZZHAT: If I say there is no proof of SANTA CLAUS, I don't have to prove there is no Santa Claus.

If you insist there IS a Santa Claus, I don't have to prove there isn't, you have to prove there is.

That is how it works.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5604 Feb 6, 2014
GCDNW wrote:
<quoted text>
Not me, blow monkey,
You, GZZZZZMMMM.

Use Sod0mite's hose when he is done with it.

I am sure you don't have to ask where he stores it.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5605 Feb 6, 2014
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
You posted: "Underline the section that said common firearms can't be banned and post it."
Then I responded with: "You mean this part: "The handgun ban and the trigger-lock .
common firearms, Shug.

Where is the section that says "common firearms can't be banned"?

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#5606 Feb 6, 2014
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
To back up my claim all I have to do is point to the 2nd Amendment and show you the blank spot were you say it says that you have the right to sell guns to anyone you please.
You can fill that blank spot with whatever BULLSHIT you want. It still does NOT say I can't, does it????

You're done.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5607 Feb 6, 2014
Armed Veteran wrote:
So in short....banning an entire class of firearm is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Isn't, F!kstain.

Let me know when you find the section that were the Second Amendment to protects (possession of) machine guns.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#5608 Feb 6, 2014
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
common firearms, Shug.
Where is the section that says "common firearms can't be banned"?
Simple question. Are handguns "common firearms"? Yes or No.

Or are you just playing your stupid semantics game again?

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#5609 Feb 6, 2014
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
So you can't find it and instead want to move the goalposts?
Hardly troll, why would he copy-cat a LIEberal demonrat like you?

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#5610 Feb 6, 2014
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
YOU WERE ASSERTING YOUR EXPERTISE, f*kstain!
I was saying you were no EXPERT, i.e.,
"Grammar and Punctuation: Independent vs. Dependent Clauses
www.aims.edu/.../independent-vs-depende...&am... ;
Aims Community College
Understanding the difference between independent and dependent clauses is important in understanding how to construct sentences and avoid fragments."
IE: You are no expert.
IE: you brought it up.
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!please stop.....my sides are KILLING me!)

LIE, AFTER LIE, AFTER LIE.

I didn't "assert" a damn thing (even though I was correct in my statement). Even when I PROVE that YOU were the first one to bring up "grammar", you STILL want to deny it by backpedalling to some assertion you ASSUMED I was making.

You REALLY need to stop before you dig yourself down to magma level.

LMAO!!!!!!!!!(damn...it hurts to breathe)

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#5611 Feb 6, 2014
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
YOU WERE ASSERTING YOUR EXPERTISE, f*kstain!
I was saying you were no EXPERT, i.e.,
"Grammar and Punctuation: Independent vs. Dependent Clauses
www.aims.edu/.../independent-vs-depende...&am... ;
Aims Community College
Understanding the difference between independent and dependent clauses is important in understanding how to construct sentences and avoid fragments."
IE: You are no expert.
IE: you brought it up.
Or, we can go to the SOURCE. Which is the amendment as was ORIGINALLY PRESENTED for ratification by the states:

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to PREVENT MISCONSTRUCTION or ABUSE of its powers, that further >>>DECLARATORY< << and >>>RESTRICTIVE< << clauses should be added: And as EXTENDING the ground of PUBLIC CONFIDENCE in the Government, will BEST ENSURE the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, ALL, or any of which Articles, when RATIFIED by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be VALID to ALL INTENTS and PURPOSES, as PART of the said Constitution; viz.]

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution....

...Amendment II

DECLARATORY clause;

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,

RESTRICTIVE clause;

the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, shall NOT be infringed.

Take a hike, you cowardly and treasonous drone.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#5612 Feb 6, 2014
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't, F!kstain.
Let me know when you find the section that were the Second Amendment to protects (possession of) machine guns.
So you are going to continue to move the goalpost AGAIN?????

How about just answering the f**king question (for once)?

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#5613 Feb 6, 2014
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
NO, AZZHAT: If I say there is no proof of SANTA CLAUS, I don't have to prove there is no Santa Claus.
If you insist there IS a Santa Claus, I don't have to prove there isn't, you have to prove there is.
That is how it works.
Only in the deflective and LYING communist-socialist-LIEberal mind, freak.

"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed."

That's the ONLY proof required in this argument. Anything else is MEANINGLESS.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#5614 Feb 6, 2014
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
common firearms, Shug.
Where is the section that says "common firearms can't be banned"?
"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed."

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#5615 Feb 6, 2014
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't, F!kstain.
Let me know when you find the section that were the Second Amendment to protects (possession of) machine guns.
"...Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the PEOPLE AT LARGE, than to have them properly ARMED and EQUIPPED .... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, LITTLE, if at ALL, INFERIOR to them in discipline and the USE OF ARMS, who stand ready to DEFEND THEIR OWN RIGHTS, and those of their fellow citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army; and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."--Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 29, Independent Journal, Wednesday, January 9, 1788.

"In the course of the argument, The Federalist has been quoted ; and the opinions expressed by the authors of that work have been justly supposed to be entitled to great respect in expounding the constitution."--Chief Justice John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court, McCULLOCH v. MARYLAND,[4 Wheaton 316.] 1819.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5616 Feb 6, 2014
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Simple question. Are handguns "common firearms"? Yes or No.
Simple question: Where is the section that says "common firearms can't be banned"?

Or are you going to skip over it like you do every time you are asked to prove something you said?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5617 Feb 6, 2014
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are going to continue to move the goalpost AGAIN?????
?
I haven't moved an inch.

Where is the section that says "common firearms can't be banned"?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5618 Feb 6, 2014
Armed Veteran wrote:
I didn't "assert" a damn thing (even though I was correct in my statement).
You brought it up.

You declared something to be an independent clause and I said correctly: you are no expert on grammar.

And you insisted I brought it.

You do see your post has the smaller number than mine, F*kstain?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5619 Feb 6, 2014
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are going to continue to move the goalpost AGAIN?????
?
Armed Veteran wrote:
So in short....banning an entire class of firearm is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Now are you going to deny you brought it up, F*kstain?

Or is not machine guns an entire class of firearm?

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.

Opinion Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Stop Maryland's season of cruelty: fall bow hun... (Sep '07) 21 min Raptor in Michigan 113,747
News Forensic nightmare: The perils of touch DNA 41 min Guilljeg 2
News Democrats Shouldn't Dismiss Nunes' Spying Claim... 2 hr Obama Domestic Sp... 1
News Plan not the best (Jul '11) 5 hr shoplifting at Be... 2
News Budget cuts hurt Montana families 9 hr USA 3
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 11 hr No Surprise 5,379
News Our Opinion: Making progress on Pittsfield's wo... 16 hr Cops are Degenerates 5
More from around the web