Texas law professor calls for repeal ...

Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second Amendment

There are 12163 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

#5562 Feb 6, 2014
Armed Veteran wrote:
But it does start the independent clause of it.
.
YOU BROUGHT IT UP, Fucktard!

HAHAHAHAAHH!

If you can't remember your own posts, sh!tstain, you might at least learn how to use the scroll button!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5563 Feb 6, 2014
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
"well regulated" or "well regulated militia"........doesn't matter. It is still describing the state of the militia.
Militia WOULD NOT HAVE EVEN BEEN MENTIONED if it wasn't the intent of the FF for weapons to be owned.

Let me know as soon as you find the part that guarantees your right to sell them to anyone you please.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5564 Feb 6, 2014
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
There has been petition after petition from we the people calling for his impeachment.
Yea, what a shame it is the majority voted for him as per the US Constitution, F*kstain.

Funny how the gun gnutters are such hard core constitutionalists when it comes to following the letter of the law... in one section of one amendment and ignore the rest.

Wipe your chin, DongLiqueer. You're leaking.
grumpy

Stony Point, NY

#5565 Feb 6, 2014
grumpy wrote:
<quoted text>There were 5 opinions that did not include self defense as a right. That includes Breyer who voted for Heller for another reason.
I must admit I was confused by this sentence in the link,"Justice Stephen Breyer wrote an additional dissent, which was joined by the same four justices who participated in the Stevens dissent." To me that added up to 5 dissents.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#5566 Feb 6, 2014
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Underline the section that said common firearms can't be banned and post it.
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?????

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#5567 Feb 6, 2014
-2ndAmRight- wrote:
<quoted text>
more tripe from the Topix re-tard... did you run out of bowel movements yet?
Nope....I'm pretty regular. I flush one of you down the toilet at least once a day. But thanks for asking.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#5568 Feb 6, 2014
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
YOU BROUGHT IT UP, Fucktard!
HAHAHAHAAHH!
If you can't remember your own posts, sh!tstain, you might at least learn how to use the scroll button!
If you are referring to mentioning grammar, I even pointed out the post (#5460) where you mentioned my grammar FIRST, DUMBA55!!!

So now you are lying about your lying. LMAO!!!!!!!!!!

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#5569 Feb 6, 2014
-2ndAmRight- wrote:
<quoted text>
and you of course are the expert of peoples balls...or at least your mouth is..
Projecting your own vile affections again, eh perverse troll child?

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#5570 Feb 6, 2014
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Militia WOULD NOT HAVE EVEN BEEN MENTIONED if it wasn't the intent of the FF for weapons to be owned.
Let me know as soon as you find the part that guarantees your right to sell them to anyone you please.
Sure....just as soon as you point out the part of the 2nd that says I can't.

And while your at it......point out the part where it says "the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I'm pretty sure it's NOT in there, but hey.......here a chance to prove me wrong. Go for it.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#5571 Feb 6, 2014
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
REad the part where Scalia said the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
If your boyfriend's wad didn't miss your tonsils and blind ya.
Underline the section that said common firearms can't be banned and post it.
Which of course is all just conjecture in the face of:

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

There is not one shred of credible historical evidence that correctly backs the stance of the court. Instead, the court reached back to BEFORE the Constitution in order to justify their perversions. The court made a FALSE opinion based upon ENGLISH PRECEDENT. Rather than ruling according to FUNDAMENTAL LAW as they are CONSTITUTIONALLY CHARGED to do.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#5572 Feb 6, 2014
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Happy to [snipped for brevity]
IRRELEVANT:

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

Our hired servants in government were EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN from enacting ANY 'law' which contravenes that right in ANY way, shape or form.

"shall NOT be infringed."

It is NOT left up to the hired servant to determine the extent of their MASTERS rights. The hired servants were hired by We The People to SECURE those "blessings of liberty" FOR us. And NOT to decide what >they< think is best for us.

Our servants are Constitutionally BOUND by the Supreme Law of the Land. And any time our servants stray from the FUNDAMENTAL LAW. We The people are under NO obligation to obey their tyrannical usurpation.

THEY are the criminals - NOT us.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#5575 Feb 6, 2014
grumpy wrote:
<quoted text>There were 5 opinions that did not include self defense as a right. That includes Breyer who voted for Heller for another reason.
FIRST LAW OF NATURE, cowardly and treasonous troll:

"Two questions of a very delicate nature present themselves on this occasion: 1. On what principle the Confederation, which stands in the solemn form of a compact among the States, can be superseded without the unanimous consent of the parties to it? 2. What relation is to subsist between the nine or more States ratifying the Constitution, and the remaining few who do not become parties to it?

"The first question is answered at once by recurring to the absolute necessity of the case; to the great principle of SELF-PRESERVATION; to the TRANSCENDENT law of NATURE and of NATURE'S GOD, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed. Perhaps, also, an answer may be found without searching beyond the principles of the compact itself...."--James Madison, The Federalist No. 43, Independent Journal, Wednesday, January 23, 1788.

"Man's right to private property stems from the Natural Law implanted in him by God. It is as much a part of man's nature as the will to self-preservation." (At 560.)"-- MR. Justice Douglas,(in dissent), U.S. Supreme Court, quoting "Arthur J. Hughes' general history text, Man in Time (1964)", in Board OF Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236 (1968). Decided June 10, 1968.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#5577 Feb 6, 2014
-2ndAmRight- wrote:
<quoted text>
our legally ignorant re-tard has spoken...
Yes, you indeed have. And pathetically as always.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#5578 Feb 6, 2014
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yea, what a shame it is the majority voted for him as per the US Constitution, F*kstain.
Funny how the gun gnutters are such hard core constitutionalists when it comes to following the letter of the law... in one section of one amendment and ignore the rest.
Wipe your chin, DongLiqueer. You're leaking.
The 'majority'[including the DEAD] FRAUDULENTLY voted for him, conspiring traitor-troll

“Kenyan-born Obama=Antichrist”

Since: Sep 09

Casper, WY

#5580 Feb 6, 2014
Tray wrote:
<quoted text>By the way I am still waiting on your better idea on how to provide self defense than a gun.
Kenyan-born Obama the Antichrist uses drones to call down lightning from the sky.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#5582 Feb 6, 2014
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Militia WOULD NOT HAVE EVEN BEEN MENTIONED if it wasn't the intent of the FF for weapons to be owned.
Let me know as soon as you find the part that guarantees your right to sell them to anyone you please.
Hardly, vile traitor-troll. For the RIGHT of the PEOPLE existed even BEFORE there was a "militia". The "militia" was just ONE of the reasons given for SECURING the RIGHT of the PEOPLE in the "RESTRICTIVE" clause of amendment II.

Militia = Common Defense

Right of the People = Self-Defense

"Also, the conditions and circumstances of the period require a finding that while the stated purpose of the right to arms was to secure a well-regulated militia, the right to self-defense was assumed by the Framers."--Chief Justice John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court.[As quoted in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846); State v. Dawson, 272 N.C. 535, 159 S.E.2d 1, 9 (1968).]

"The first section of the bill of rights in the constitution of Pennsylvania declares that all men have the inherent and indefeasible right of enjoying and defending life and liberty of acquiring possessing and protecting property that no man can be deprived of his liberty or property but by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land Sect 9 That the right of citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state shall not be questioned Sect 21 The second section of the fourth article of the constitution of the United States declares the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. The tenth section of the first article prohibits any state from passing any law which impairs the obligation of a contract. The second amendment provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

"...We shall pursue this subject no further, in its bearing on the political rights of the states composing the union--in recalling your attention to these rights, which are the subject of this controversy, we declare to you as the law of the case, that they are inherent and unalienable--so recognised by all our fundamental laws.

"The constitution of the state or union is not the source of these rights, or the others to which we have referred you, they existed in their plenitude before any constitutions, which do not create but protect and secure them against ANY violation by the legislatures or courts, in making, expounding or administering laws."--U.S. Supreme Court Justice BALDWIN, Circuit Court of The United States,[PENNSYLVANIA APRIL TERM 1833 BEFORE Hon. HENRY BALDWIN, Associate Justice of the [U.S.] Supreme Court, Hon. JOSEPH HOPKINSON District Judge, Charge to the Jury in Johnson v Tompkins,(13 F. Cas. 840 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1833)), and others.]

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#5583 Feb 6, 2014
-2ndAmRight- wrote:
<quoted text>
another legal hillbilly expert.....gun control laws in California, New York and many other states prove your a full of $-hit...go play with yourself moron...
and if you want to test the laws, come to california... bring your constitution and your guns and we will find a nice cold jail cell for you....so you read your bill of rights in peace..
They are TYRANNICAL USURPATIONS that will soon get TOSSED OUT. Just as in Chicago and D.C. The communists in Kalipornia and New Pork will soon be shivering in fear and changing their diapers many times a day.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#5584 Feb 6, 2014
-2ndAmRight- wrote:
<quoted text>
no argument there
Too bad you have to use cowardly subterfuge to make any type of 'point', eh mindless troll?
Tray

Saltillo, MS

#5585 Feb 6, 2014
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Happy to proving that you be a igonorant lying CNT:
Today, the U.S. Surpreme Court issued their landmark decision in case of DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER which directly deals with the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms. Justice Scalia, in writing for the majority in a 5/4 decision has affirmed our individual right to keep and bear arms. The decision has three main points:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
**** 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. 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.
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. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy is prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
Justice Scalia, ends his opinion with the following summary:
"We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."
(clip)
but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."

Still not a ruling. I see you cut some parts. Isn't that typical liberal.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5586 Feb 6, 2014
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean this part: "The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.
So you can't find it and instead want to move the goalposts?

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 Slaying the Abortion Giant 8 min truthverdad 2
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 1 hr KiMare 34,553
News Editorial: Boy Scouts right to end gay leader ban 1 hr Straight Eric 5
News Climate Agreement in December: A Miracle in Paris? 4 hr Earthling-1 1
News Affordable housing essay: Affordable housing is... 6 hr PHONYBLACKGUY 8
News Eternal Shame to 'America,' Germany and Europe 6 hr Oliver Cromwell 1,070
News Undocumented immigrant accused of Ohio murder 6 hr tomin cali 1
More from around the web