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.

barefootsgaylove r

Torrance, CA

#3216 Jan 4, 2014
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
my queer little fellah: cramming it up your azz.
<quoted text>
Jeez , Barefoot has the hots for you, His queer little fella? He wants your body bad. I think he is expanding his network, wanting a taste of not only his usual bed buddies but some fresh meat.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#3218 Jan 4, 2014
zipp wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe there is a major lack of accountability with those who would commit violent acts and crime.
And that is directly due to our CORRUPTED system. I hope that you have taken a look at the response I made directly above. For you will see that I'm not in favor of the criminals. More so, I'm against the corruption of our intended legal system. You being in L.E. are probably more aware of how corrupted it is than I am.

It used to be that criminals were PUNISHED. And to the point that there is no way they wanted to return to jail or prison. Now we have people committing crimes just so they can get in and get three hots and a cot. They take advantage of the system. The system used to make people WORK - HARD for their keep. As well as pay restitution for crimes done. Now the criminals are treated better than the victims are. And L.E. treats EVERYONE as if they are potential criminals. What in the hell is up with that?

We The People PAY THE SALARIES of all of those we hire/elect to SERVE us. And yet we are treated as the 'servants' instead of the MASTERS. That twisted thinking MUST be turned around.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#3219 Jan 4, 2014
zipp wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to believe that all of your ideas and interpretations are the correct ones and all others are wrong. This is a stumbling block for you. Not only did you miss the points that I made previously, you will not reflect on the chance that you made a oversight and you will behave in a hostile manner with anyone that you think doesn't blindly follow your ideas. What does that sound like to you?
If you believe that felons and unbalanced people should have access to firearms as law abiding citizens, then we do not see eye to eye. Oh, and stop being disrespectful just because you think your anonymous. I don't behave this way toward you and I don't call you names.
We are talking about our CONSTITUTION. And >you< were hired to "UPHOLD AND DEFEND" that Constitution, WERE YOU NOT? We The People PAY YOUR SALARY. And we want HIRED SERVANTS that will ABIDE by our CONSTITUTION. And NOT blindfully follow the dictates of corrupt politicians/judicial officers that VIOLATE OUR RIGHTS at EVERY OPPORTUNITY. Are we CLEAR, SERVANT?

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#3220 Jan 4, 2014
zipp wrote:
<quoted text>
SAY WHAT?
This was one of the points I was trying to make earlier!
?????
CLEARLY that is not the way it appeared to me.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#3221 Jan 4, 2014
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
He does.
If you want to call him on it, let me save you some time: as soon as a felon finishes his sentence, according to GumsShows, he is no longer a felon.
It doesn't matter that this is not correct- that, in fact, a felon is a felon and remains of felon forever unless pardon by the (e.g.) governor.
Doesn't matter.
GumsShows insisted that Adam Lanza was a registered Democrat.
As "proof", he insisted Newtown voted for Obama.
That was his proof- putting aside it is of course nonsensical, it is also false: Newtown voted for Romney.
GumsShows had very stupidly posted first return numbers and would go on to insist his numbers were right, even with the complete numbers as verified by the secretary of state.
Though he "moved" his proof to: the state of Connecticut voted for Obama... which proved Adam Lanza was a registered Democrat.
What you do with this clown is QUOTE him and then have him hit you with the same spam that he has been using since 2006.
Have fun!
Take a hike, you vile little deceptive traitor-troll.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#3222 Jan 4, 2014
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Doesn't matter.
And when you fling it back into his face he cries like a five year old who dropped his ice cream cone on the sidewalk.
Not quite, traitor-troll. Everyone here knows that you and your alter-ego 'satanlives' are the masters of that little twisted game.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#3223 Jan 4, 2014
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't help anyone do anything, my queer little fellah: you'd have to be smarter than them and that just isn't going to happen here.
PS: When I copy EXACTLY what you say- this is called a quote- it isn't twisting what you say.
It's taking some you say and cramming it up your azz.
<quoted text>
Shove it, you queer little fellah. You don't post "exactly" what ANYONE states. You perversely TWIST EVERYTHING to fit your own perverted and twisted agenda.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#3224 Jan 4, 2014
barefootsgaylover wrote:
<quoted text>
Jeez , Barefoot has the hots for you, His queer little fella? He wants your body bad. I think he is expanding his network, wanting a taste of not only his usual bed buddies but some fresh meat.
Yeah, sickening, isn't it?
barefootsgaylove r

Torrance, CA

#3225 Jan 4, 2014
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
Not quite, traitor-troll. Everyone here knows that you and your alter-ego 'satanlives' are the masters of that little twisted game.
My little homo still using that alias?

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#3226 Jan 4, 2014
zipp wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to believe that all of your ideas and interpretations are the correct ones and all others are wrong. This is a stumbling block for you. Not only did you miss the points that I made previously, you will not reflect on the chance that you made a oversight and you will behave in a hostile manner with anyone that you think doesn't blindly follow your ideas. What does that sound like to you?
If you believe that felons and unbalanced people should have access to firearms as law abiding citizens, then we do not see eye to eye. Oh, and stop being disrespectful just because you think your anonymous. I don't behave this way toward you and I don't call you names.
You state:

"You seem to believe that all of your ideas and interpretations are the correct ones and all others are wrong. This is a stumbling block for you."

Tell me how that can possibly be, when what I'm advocating is the EXACT ORIGINAL INTENT of those that FOUNDED this nation? The very same men which FRAMED our Constitution. And that is not just an idle claim or boast. But something that I can BACK UP - with ACTUAL FACTS. For I studied EVERY SINGLE LAST CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE concerning the Constitution. And that, FROM EVERY SINGLE LAST STATE THAT HAD PARTICIPATED. So by all means, please PROVE that which you claim.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#3227 Jan 4, 2014
barefootsgaylover wrote:
<quoted text>
My little homo still using that alias?
Among others. I thought you promised that you were going to keep him bound and gagged?

Since: Feb 11

Grants Pass, OR

#3228 Jan 4, 2014
2ndAmRight wrote:
For you will see that I'm not in favor of the criminals.
"Yes, I DO insist that people that had committed felonies in the past. And then served their lawfully imposed sentence for their crime. Have just as much a right to arms for their defense as anyone else."

Remember:
2ndAmRight wrote:
Actually, anyone that opposes my "viewpoint" is a TRAITOR. For all I post is HISTORICAL FACTS concerning our RIGHT to arms.

Since: Feb 11

Grants Pass, OR

#3229 Jan 4, 2014
2ndAmRight wrote:
Tell me how that can possibly be, when what I'm advocating is the EXACT ORIGINAL INTENT.
You can't even quote the REAL Second Amendment of the US.

You can't remember what you said fifteen minutes ago but you insist you know better than the Supreme Court Justice.

Since: Feb 11

Grants Pass, OR

#3230 Jan 4, 2014
2ndAmRight wrote:
For I studied EVERY SINGLE LAST CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE .
You insisted that Newtown voted for Obama.

You were wrong.

When confronted rather than admit you were wrong, you insisted only 2,465 people voted even though I showed you the official count was over 14,00.

You lie when you blink and you have absolutely no morals.

That is why you need a Rolodex to keep track of your aliases.

None, GumsShows.

Since: Feb 11

Grants Pass, OR

#3231 Jan 4, 2014
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
Shove it, you queer little fellah. You don't post "exactly" what ANYONE states. You perversely TWIST EVERYTHING to fit your own perverted and twisted agenda.
Twist?

Funny thing about google and my "twists" of your exact quotes: anyone can follow them back right to the minute you posted them.
2ndAmRight wrote:
Just because a group of feces-flinging monkeys adorned in black robes declare it so.
barefootsgaylove r

Costa Mesa, CA

#3232 Jan 4, 2014
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
"Yes, I DO insist that people that had committed felonies in the past. And then served their lawfully imposed sentence for their crime. Have just as much a right to arms for their defense as anyone else."
Remember:
<quoted text>
Seems barefoot is putting words on other peoples mouth, kind of like he is always shoving things in his mouth, very deep I might add.
barefootsgaylove r

Costa Mesa, CA

#3233 Jan 4, 2014
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Twist?
Funny thing about google and my "twists" of your exact quotes: anyone can follow them back right to the minute you posted them.
<quoted text>
Funny thing is, you claim to quote exactly what people say, but when asked to back it up, show where and when they said it, you defer and change the subject. Methinks you have a working memory like you have a working penis, YOU DON'T!
grumpy

Stony Point, NY

#3235 Jan 5, 2014

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#3237 Jan 5, 2014
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
"Yes, I DO insist that people that had committed felonies in the past. And then served their lawfully imposed sentence for their crime. Have just as much a right to arms for their defense as anyone else."
Remember:
<quoted text>
PRECISELY.

Hardly my fault your reading comprehension skills are ZERO.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#3238 Jan 5, 2014
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't even quote the REAL Second Amendment of the US.
You can't remember what you said fifteen minutes ago but you insist you know better than the Supreme Court Justice.
Can't help that you are mentally deficient, traitor-troll:

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.

And backed up by one of the most respected U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justices ever:

"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).]

Take a hike, vile traitor.

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 News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 min Chimney1 201,843
News If Donald Trump Was President, Here's What Woul... (Oct '15) 2 min porkmo 10,553
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 2 min Quirky 391,850
News Mark Cuban endorses Hillary Clinton 7 min Quirky 1
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 12 min Jay 233,785
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 13 min Jonah1 15,106
News Courts strike blows to GOP voter restrictions i... 16 min Ronald 17
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 21 min Dr Guru 219,926
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 32 min VetnorsGate 1,406,601
News A tale of two conventions 3 hr gwww 40
More from around the web