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.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#2072 Dec 21, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
What a shame it is the terms of your parole for child molestation keeps you in Phoenix.
Totally lost your vain and fruitless arguments. And this because you have NO facts on which to stand. So as usual, you return to fallacious and vile conjecture. It must be sad being as hopelessly pathetic as you are.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#2074 Dec 21, 2013
mjjcpa wrote:
<quoted text>
You will never get parole.
Now get back in your cell.
But she will get another electro-shock treatment!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#2075 Dec 21, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
To bad for you
"To bad", Vince?

I guess you shouldn't pick on spelling of others.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#2077 Dec 21, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
Totally lost your vain and fruitless arguments. And this because you have NO facts on which to stand.
You mean: you finally have the FACTS to support your claim that Adam Lanza was a registered Democrat?

Because the list of things you have posted that were lies in this is rather long.

Like when you told us Newtown was REpublican and that proved that Adam Lanza was a Democrat because he lived there.

Putting aside that in itself was stupid... Newtown voted Republican (again).

S

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#2078 Dec 21, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
"To bad", Vince?
I guess you shouldn't pick on spelling of others.
Reduced to spelling corrections, eh troll? Why not just come out and openly admit that you have lost? That you have always lost here on Topix. And that you will always be nothing more than a pathetic loser? It would save us all a lot of time.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#2079 Dec 21, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean: you finally have the FACTS to support your claim that Adam Lanza was a registered Democrat?
Because the list of things you have posted that were lies in this is rather long.
Like when you told us Newtown was REpublican and that proved that Adam Lanza was a Democrat because he lived there.
Putting aside that in itself was stupid... Newtown voted Republican (again).
S
Problem is, twisting troll. Is that your deliberate twisting of what actually has been written. As well as your pathetic attempts at deflecting. Prevents any type of honest debate. The reason that you use these deceitful tactics is simple. You realize that you are on the losing side. And that there are no actual facts which will buttress your vain arguments. So you are left employing nothing more than outright lies.

Sad, pathetically so.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#2080 Dec 21, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
Reduced to spelling corrections, eh troll?.
You forgot that's the very first thing you did this morning, Vince?

HAHAHAHAAHAHAH!

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#2081 Dec 21, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You forgot that's the very first thing you did this morning, Vince?
HAHAHAHAAHAHAH!
Pathetically attempting to capitalize on a spelling error? Really troll? That's all you've got?

Do you even have the slightest idea how pathetic that makes you appear?
grumpy

Stony Point, NY

#2082 Dec 21, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
And here is Constitutional REALITY:
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.
As proven by this well know Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court:
"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).]
To bad for you communist-demonrat-LIEberal's, eh?
What do think "condition and circumstances of the period require.." means???

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#2083 Dec 21, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
Pathetically attempting to capitalize on a spelling error? Really troll?
Did you forget your VERY FIRST POST THIS MORNING, Keats?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#2085 Dec 21, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
Problem is, twisting troll..
Yes... you have been twisting and deflecting ever since I called you three minutes after you posted the Adam Lanza lie.

I have to say among all the many thousands of lies you have posted that this is one of the silliest.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#2086 Dec 21, 2013
grumpy wrote:
<quoted text>What do think "condition and circumstances of the period require.." means???
Mr. Marshall was THERE at the debates over the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Perhaps you should study his writings in order to obtain a clear understanding of what he meant.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#2087 Dec 21, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you forget your VERY FIRST POST THIS MORNING, Keats?
Lame attempt at deflection.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#2088 Dec 21, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes... you have been twisting and deflecting ever since I called you three minutes after you posted the Adam Lanza lie.
I have to say among all the many thousands of lies you have posted that this is one of the silliest.
Can't help that you have difficulty with the actual facts. Perhaps you'd do better if you were to use reality based thinking?
grumpy

Stony Point, NY

#2089 Dec 21, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
Mr. Marshall was THERE at the debates over the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Perhaps you should study his writings in order to obtain a clear understanding of what he meant.
You cut and paste all the late 18th and early 19th century opinions so I read the same opinions that you did. What do think "circumstances require" means?
spoko

Oakland, CA

#2090 Dec 21, 2013
Gun Control Does Not Work wrote:
<quoted text>
Chicago and DC have the most unconstitutional restrictions on the 2A, and how is it working for them? If one wants to examine an entire country, take a good look at Mexico. The citizens are essentially banned from owning firearms, so the only ones with guns are the corrupt government entities and the violent drug and street gangs. Crime is rampant and homicides are off the charts in Mexico. If firearms are banned in this country, we will probably be much like Mexico.
The libtards are causing the crime in this country with their lack of punishment for violent crimes. Early release programs created by the social liberals are putting criminals on the streets to prey on society. The socials liberals are more concerned with background checks for honest American citizens purchasing firearms than they are for background checks for violent criminal illegal aliens entering our borders.
Like I said, your reasoning is entirely illogical bordering on absurd and your ignorance is spectacular - no surprise here! Why would anyone think that local gun laws have an impact when all one has to do is go to the end of the block, outside city limits, to find all the guns you want? Mexico? Mexicans have a constitutional right to posses firearms! Lack of punishment? The US has more people behind bars than any other country in the world!

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#2091 Dec 21, 2013
grumpy wrote:
<quoted text>You cut and paste all the late 18th and early 19th century opinions so I read the same opinions that you did. What do think "circumstances require" means?
It is of no consequence whatsoever what I think it means. It is a moot point in the discussion. Just as is anything else whatsoever that detracts from the fact that:

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

That FACT is not going to alter. It will NEVER be amended away So any discussion of the matter is nothing more than an exercise in futility.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#2092 Dec 21, 2013
spoko wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said, your reasoning is entirely illogical bordering on absurd and your ignorance is spectacular - no surprise here! Why would anyone think that local gun laws have an impact when all one has to do is go to the end of the block, outside city limits, to find all the guns you want? Mexico? Mexicans have a constitutional right to posses firearms! Lack of punishment? The US has more people behind bars than any other country in the world!
Apparently you don't understand English. Here, let's have a refresher course:

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

Which of course means that there should be NO 'gun control' PERIOD.

Now I know it is difficult for the cowardly communist-demonrat-LIEberal mind to wrap itself around. But, the plain, simple, unalterable FACT is. That ALL 'gun control' here in America is NULL and VOID. And no amount of LIEberal crying, screaming, sobbing or whining is going to alter that FACT.

Don't like it? Move to a communist or socialist country where you will be more comfortable.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#2093 Dec 21, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
Can't help that you have difficulty with the actual facts.
You mean the way I pointed out that Newtown voted for Mitt Romney in 2012 when you said they voted Democrat?

And the way I posted the link to the site proving what I said and you posted a link to the state of Connecticut?

Or the way I keep reminding you that you said Adam Lanza was a registered Democrat and as proof you posted a link to GE who contributed to Obama and that was proof?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#2094 Dec 21, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed."
.
2ndAmRight wrote:
MEANINGLESS:

United States Constitution, 2nd Article of Amendment, "Restrictive" clause:

"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed."
Make up your mind, DavyQ.

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.

US House of Representatives Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 1 min NotSoDivineMsM 233,034
News The Latest: 2 Indiana hopefuls will seek return... 3 min Go Blue Forever 1
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 11 min replaytime 201,279
News Emanuel Cleaver: Hillary Clinton faces a irrati... 12 min Lawrence Wolf 9
News The Latest: First lady calls out Trump, - hatefula 21 min Lawrence Wolf 15
News Turkey issues warrants for 42 journalists amid ... 57 min Rockstar 4
News Heckled offstage, Wasserman Schultz now seeks r... 1 hr CZars_R_US 8
More from around the web