Is the 2nd Amendment all but dead?

ThePirate said:

The Free Speech and Freedom to Worship part of the First Amendment is already gone.

Click to expand...

And the Fourth Amendment isn't in good shape, either, with abuse of civil seizures turning the entire concept of Innocent Until Proven Guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt on its head.

Its law & order that is dead

People have been saying that Democrats want to remove the 2nd amendment for decades now, I highly doubt that they will remove it. They might put more restrictions on certain types of guns though.

Donttakemyguns said:

People have been saying that Democrats want to remove the 2nd amendment for decades now, I highly doubt that they will remove it. They might put more restrictions on certain types of guns though.

Click to expand...

Democrats will never take the 2nd Amendment to a states' convention for repeal. They know they'd lose. The object is to make the amendment a hollow relic in our Constitution.

Donttakemyguns said:

People have been saying that Democrats want to remove the 2nd amendment for decades now, I highly doubt that they will remove it. They might put more restrictions on certain types of guns though.

Click to expand...

Of course you doubt it.

What kind of restrictions do you find acceptable? And what is the basis for your acceptance?

Would you care to share your background and history with firearms?

Ponder_MD said:

Democrats will never take the 2nd Amendment to a states' convention for repeal. They know they'd lose. The object is to make the amendment a hollow relic in our Constitution.

Click to expand...

Several states consider becoming 'Second Amendment Sanctuaries'
https://6do.news/article/3617668-41

Not quite yet BUT.....the 1st is basically non-existent. The Fascists are doing a much better job than we are!!

Bertfish said:

It'll only die if you comply

Nice rhyme to it

Click to expand...

I've always held this kind of sentiment. It seems like now's the time that stopped talking about it and being about it.

I'm still going to say I lost all my guns in a boating accident though.

hypocrisy

Ever notice how rich fat liberals have private security who are well-armed to protect them while they wail about the evils of gun ownership?

Ed Anger said:

Ever notice how rich fat liberals have private security who are well-armed to protect them while they wail about the evils of gun ownership?

Click to expand...

Ed Anger said:

I'll bet all the talk about gun control is just talk. Politicians talk all the time and never follow up on it. Is this any different from when they tell us they will lower our taxes & increase our benefits? No one believes them. How come we believe they're coming to get our guns?

Click to expand...

Why are you here? Hippocrates loves you.

Bertfish said:

It'll only die if you comply
Nice rhyme to it

Click to expand...

yeah except it isn't true. It is dead if we do not fight for it politically.

Donttakemyguns said:

People have been saying that Democrats want to remove the 2nd amendment for decades now, I highly doubt that they will remove it. They might put more restrictions on certain types of guns though.

Click to expand...

You are setting up a strawman. They seek to clarify it to mean the governments' have a right to be armed. What do you think they mean by saying "Heller was wrong" and "the need to revisit Heller."

That is Biden's plosion, the largest Democrat funder Bloomberg's position. That was Obama and Hillary's position.

And you say for "decades now" as if nothing has happened in those decades. There are over 1,700 new gun control laws.

So it isn't "they might put restrictions" They seek confiscation. Biden, like his mentor Obama, support Australian system, which means banning and confiscation even revolvers.

Leftist said:

I went with a P365 XL. Not sure there is a better carry gun on the market right now.

Click to expand...

How are your ten round mags in that, liar?

Mark K said:

Second is the impression that some might have that all Federal or Government employees automatically have the authorization to carry weapons, either on- or off-duty. Not true. I worked for decades in various DoD agencies, and the only times I was issued a weapon was when deployed -- and not always then. Badge-carrying LEOs generally carry on-duty, but that doesn't give them automatic off-duty CCW authorization.

Now I'll go back to lurking.

Click to expand...

Actually most departments and agencies require that they carry off duty, with rare exception. And if you know LEOSA, even in case where not required they are broadly allowed to if they want.

And the number of federal employees with policing powers is up to about 115,000 and steadily rising

Tebonski said:

Back to is the 2nd dead? No, it's not. Our Supreme Court justices understand everything that's at stake if the dems try to pack it. Who really thinks the five good justices are going to affirm any democrat party attempts at packing the court? And Manchin might be a democrat but he won't go along with enlarging the court either.

And say Harris Biden issue an executive order harming gun rights. All we need is a single Trump judge anywhere to nullify it just like Obama and Clinton judges have been doing to Trump for four years.
You can look in Justice Barrett's eyes and tell how she will decide Second Amendment cases. She is a true America Patriot.

Click to expand...

Firstly the Supreme court does not decide the number of justices on its bench. The Congress does. The congress, with the current Dem majority, can double the number of supreme court justices next month if they wish, and they can add 20%, 50% or 300% to the near 900 presidentially appointed federal courts the same way.

As far as Manchin, he is holding his hand out for money and will fold whenever he gets some.

Now it is true with the current court we would bey likely get a strict scrutiny decisions by the five justices we have. Claims hat those five are split are bogus when it comes to this issue. We know for a fact that the 10 cases that came up last year had four votes, and now we have five.

rascal said:

Actually most departments and agencies require that they carry off duty, with rare exception. And if you know LEOSA, even in case where not required they are broadly allowed to if they want.

Click to expand...

Good point. I'm actually not sure about that.

I kind of doubt that Army MPs or Air Force SPs, who certainly carry weapons in uniform on-duty, can do so concealed when off-duty. Particularly on-base. Maybe...

I don't know about Army CID, Army Counterintelligence (those with LEO responsibilities), or Air Force OSI agents, who generally carry in civilian clothes. But off-duty...?

But your average Federal employee? Can't even have a firearm locked in the trunk when on-base. The DoD Directive generally prohibiting that was rescinded a couple years ago, subject to installation commander determination. But I doubt many have authorized it...

shootin the breeze said:

Cowzilla said within 100 days or executive action. I’d count on that timeframe as the slowest for action. No reason to continue the slow boil unless they realize that going for the gold will spark the fourth box (although based on most of the comments I read here, that’s not going to happen and they probably know that).

Click to expand...

If it goes to the Supreme Court, it will uphold the Second Amendment. To change the Constitution, you need three quarters of Congress, I think. One question is, if they went after the guns, how would they do it?

Even though the Constitution can be changed, it can be strongly argued that the Bill of Rights cannot be changed or removed because the founders said they were rights given by God. The real question is, who would collect the guns or ammo and enforce the new laws? Local law enforcement couldn't. They lack the manpower. The National Guard? I don't think many would do it. They'd refuse. Another question is, would you be willing to die for your rights? If so, there might very well be an insurrection. Would the American people stand for it? Not likely. Gun control is a losing proposition for the Dems.

So an executive order would likely be ineffective. A law also would be ineffective. Karl Marx said you can't have a communist state without taking peoples' guns, so they won't move unless they can come up with a strategy for taking peoples' guns. And the more people think restrictive laws are in the works, the more guns and ammo they'll buy. (That's why ammo has gone through the roof.)

This is great for the U.S. because it's a cycle. The first step will be to go after the sales of guns, then ammo. Once that's illegal, I suspect that they may take the weapons of people who die. (But for any of it to work, they're going to have to have gun registration, and this has to be resisted at all costs.) If repressive laws are implemented, it will probably happen like Canada and Australia. First comes registration, then the trap is sprung. The government must first know where they are, and it may require the records of members here and other gun forums, who knows how far it will go?

I'm not concerned yet. There are many safeguards. If they try stacking the Court, watch out. That's why we must keep the Senate.

--