Actually perhaps an even better way of framing this "disagreement" over the 2A is to restate the obvious....
All 50 states have formally ratified the 2A as a pre-condition for entry into the union of the U.S. of A.
In other words.....we may just have to agree to disagree on the 2A - because it is the law of the land and there is no provision in the U.S. Constituion for override of the 2A - even though some states are in fact doing so within their jurisdictions.
All of the feined distress over tragedies that are to a great extent preventable through "reasonable" defensive measures - isn't going to stop such tragedies, and the obsene exploitation of such tragic events for political advantage is shameful.
It may also be worth noting that a significant portion of the anti-2A constituency is not surprisingly comprised of people with criminal records effectively disabling their own exercise of the 2A right. So it's not surprising that they don't respect the 2A right of the law-abiding.
Search found 2 matches
Return to “2/3rds of U.S. weapons owners would 'defy' a federal gun ban”
- Sun Jan 27, 2013 1:08 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: 2/3rds of U.S. weapons owners would 'defy' a federal gun ban
- Replies: 65
- Views: 6193
- Sun Jan 27, 2013 12:44 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: 2/3rds of U.S. weapons owners would 'defy' a federal gun ban
- Replies: 65
- Views: 6193
Re: 2/3rds of U.S. weapons owners would 'defy' a federal gun
I believe the time has come to frame this 2A "controversy" in the precise terms warranted.
The anti-2A sheep proclaim that the U.S. of A. has so "progressed" in the last 225 years that the 2A is out-dated and no longer serves any worthwhile purpose.
Well...if that is the argument to nullify the 2A - feel free to initiate the amendment process to achieve repeal of the 2A as provided for within the Constitution.
Oh........they can't get that done because 2/3 of the people support the 2A.......OK then...
That being the case.....I see the only viable course of action is for those states wanting do away with the 2A - to separate from the U.S. of A. and form their own confederation based upon aritcles of confederation that do not include protections for this reserved right of the people. You might want to consider naming your confederation the Union of Soviet Separatist States Restored (USSSR).
In short - it is the anti-2A advocates who need to formally separate from us. They obviously do not approve of our Constitution.
This 2A issue is one that is terminally dividing the U.S.A. into two separate unions.
There is no room for compromise by either constituency. Formal political separation or a very ugly war are the only two options I see .
The USSSR could establish NYC as its capitol with San Francisco as an annex.
The toll revenues that the U. S of A. will collect from West/Northeast Coast situated USSSR in return for the use of our highways and air space should liquidate the national debt of the U.S.A. within 10 years.
The anti-2A sheep proclaim that the U.S. of A. has so "progressed" in the last 225 years that the 2A is out-dated and no longer serves any worthwhile purpose.
Well...if that is the argument to nullify the 2A - feel free to initiate the amendment process to achieve repeal of the 2A as provided for within the Constitution.
Oh........they can't get that done because 2/3 of the people support the 2A.......OK then...
That being the case.....I see the only viable course of action is for those states wanting do away with the 2A - to separate from the U.S. of A. and form their own confederation based upon aritcles of confederation that do not include protections for this reserved right of the people. You might want to consider naming your confederation the Union of Soviet Separatist States Restored (USSSR).
In short - it is the anti-2A advocates who need to formally separate from us. They obviously do not approve of our Constitution.
This 2A issue is one that is terminally dividing the U.S.A. into two separate unions.
There is no room for compromise by either constituency. Formal political separation or a very ugly war are the only two options I see .
The USSSR could establish NYC as its capitol with San Francisco as an annex.
The toll revenues that the U. S of A. will collect from West/Northeast Coast situated USSSR in return for the use of our highways and air space should liquidate the national debt of the U.S.A. within 10 years.