Here’s why Carmen and I am for gun rights, Winslow: We are for self-defense. We are also for free speech and the right to let anyone speak his or her mind as long as we let those in charge work through the process and recognize that we’re all different and entitled to our own opinions. It thus means letting Special Counsel Mueller, whom I admire, do his job and gather as much evidence as possible with his grand jury before a decision as to what to do to Drumpf and his cronies that, I agree, have made the White House an adult daycare center is reached. We are also for forcing the “safe spaces” on both the far right and left open in order to force both sides to have a dialogue and come to realize that they do need each other in more ways than they realize. This means that we are for both sides of the media allowing each other to fairly debate and critique each other’s arguments and let them be open for arguments. Finally, we are for ensuring justice as long as we let the judicial and legislative processes (and, perhaps, the executive process) play out. We must let Mueller continue to investigate, and then let the people just vote the bums out in November 2018 and November 2020 (or 2024). That is all.
And pertaining to the comic, I do not believe there is much support at all for repealing the second amendment. The fervent anti gun control advocates claim that anyone who wants the ‘well regulated’ part of the second amendment included only want to repeal it, but that is not the case.
One can see from yesterday’s ‘discussion’ any mention of even discussion or study is treated as if it is a demand for confiscation.
Hard to see how even a small dialogue can happen. I’m all for it, but participants must agree on some ground rules. As of now, anti-gun control advocates claim that a dialogue is confiscation.
Actually it takes three-fourths of the states to repeal an amendment (38 states). It takes two-thirds of both houses of congress to vote to send it to the states for ratification.
No, you can’t repeal the 2nd Amendment. That doesn’t mean you can’t go back to interpreting it the same way it’s been interpreted through most of American history. We’ve always regulated arms, and we regulate them now. The only argument is what the regulations should be, not whether there should be any at all.
What we are doing now is just nuts, and is NOT what the 2nd Amendment means, or has even been viewed to mean.
Imagine an unbiased, apolitical SCOTUS that worked for “We the People” instead of see-sawing back and forth between Democratic and Republican biased decisions.
I’m in favor of forcing the “well regulated militia” part of that amendment agreement. Most gun owners couldn’t act as a militia even if their lives depended on it!
The only thing anyone is “safe spaces” is safe from is critical thinking. But, sigh, they believe that “critical thinking” is what hurts people’s feelings so…never mind.
Despite common opinion, I know lots of “Progressives” and the questionable “liberals”, (what is a liberal anymore?) Do like the 2nd amendment, in large part due to a irresponsible government that it says should be taken down by the people. The whole bit is very unstable now. I’m pro gun, as is most of the people I know from any party or no party.
Now that Mueller and his shadow Comey have been implicated in the Hillary-Uranium Bribery scandal, will there be a special prosecutor appointed to investigate them?
JBMLAW01, what have you been reading? By “Hillary-Uranium-Bribery Scandal,” what do you even mean? Sounds like something that came out of Drumpf’s mouth to me.
railwayman001 about 7 years ago
Here’s why Carmen and I am for gun rights, Winslow: We are for self-defense. We are also for free speech and the right to let anyone speak his or her mind as long as we let those in charge work through the process and recognize that we’re all different and entitled to our own opinions. It thus means letting Special Counsel Mueller, whom I admire, do his job and gather as much evidence as possible with his grand jury before a decision as to what to do to Drumpf and his cronies that, I agree, have made the White House an adult daycare center is reached. We are also for forcing the “safe spaces” on both the far right and left open in order to force both sides to have a dialogue and come to realize that they do need each other in more ways than they realize. This means that we are for both sides of the media allowing each other to fairly debate and critique each other’s arguments and let them be open for arguments. Finally, we are for ensuring justice as long as we let the judicial and legislative processes (and, perhaps, the executive process) play out. We must let Mueller continue to investigate, and then let the people just vote the bums out in November 2018 and November 2020 (or 2024). That is all.
braindead Premium Member about 7 years ago
Agree with all of your statement, Railwayman.
And pertaining to the comic, I do not believe there is much support at all for repealing the second amendment. The fervent anti gun control advocates claim that anyone who wants the ‘well regulated’ part of the second amendment included only want to repeal it, but that is not the case.
One can see from yesterday’s ‘discussion’ any mention of even discussion or study is treated as if it is a demand for confiscation.
Hard to see how even a small dialogue can happen. I’m all for it, but participants must agree on some ground rules. As of now, anti-gun control advocates claim that a dialogue is confiscation.
Darsan54 Premium Member about 7 years ago
Winslow, you’re acting like you’re the DTs.
pearlsbs about 7 years ago
Actually it takes three-fourths of the states to repeal an amendment (38 states). It takes two-thirds of both houses of congress to vote to send it to the states for ratification.
Ignatz Premium Member about 7 years ago
No, you can’t repeal the 2nd Amendment. That doesn’t mean you can’t go back to interpreting it the same way it’s been interpreted through most of American history. We’ve always regulated arms, and we regulate them now. The only argument is what the regulations should be, not whether there should be any at all.
What we are doing now is just nuts, and is NOT what the 2nd Amendment means, or has even been viewed to mean.
superposition about 7 years ago
Imagine an unbiased, apolitical SCOTUS that worked for “We the People” instead of see-sawing back and forth between Democratic and Republican biased decisions.
Christopher Shea about 7 years ago
Wow, you really beat up that strawcoyote.
kipallen about 7 years ago
Actually, it’s three-fourths of the states, not two thirds that need ratification.
stefaninafla about 7 years ago
I’m in favor of forcing the “well regulated militia” part of that amendment agreement. Most gun owners couldn’t act as a militia even if their lives depended on it!
dogday Premium Member about 7 years ago
The only thing anyone is “safe spaces” is safe from is critical thinking. But, sigh, they believe that “critical thinking” is what hurts people’s feelings so…never mind.
pam Miner about 7 years ago
Despite common opinion, I know lots of “Progressives” and the questionable “liberals”, (what is a liberal anymore?) Do like the 2nd amendment, in large part due to a irresponsible government that it says should be taken down by the people. The whole bit is very unstable now. I’m pro gun, as is most of the people I know from any party or no party.
jbmlaw01 about 7 years ago
Now that Mueller and his shadow Comey have been implicated in the Hillary-Uranium Bribery scandal, will there be a special prosecutor appointed to investigate them?
railwayman001 about 7 years ago
JBMLAW01, what have you been reading? By “Hillary-Uranium-Bribery Scandal,” what do you even mean? Sounds like something that came out of Drumpf’s mouth to me.
kaffekup about 7 years ago
I think Winslow’s become a republican, too: “But I want it. That means it happens, right?”
JeffreySGreen Premium Member about 7 years ago
I think it’s too late for much gun control. People just aren’t phased by wholesale massacres. “It will never happen to me.”