Politicians/Media Refuse "proudly Gun Free" Sign

That's exactly why it would be outdated.

Is NAQA a real thing? All I find are satirical references.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/third-amendment-rights-group-celebrates-another-su,2296/

It has one directly related case!
Engblom v. Carey

actually apparently not, my bad.

I was skimming.


maybe 1 directly related case (and not really as it was employee housing, but meh).

but there were incidents in the war of 1812, the civil war, and ww2.


The point is: it's another protection of the people from the government itself, just because it's less controversial (as most would agree with it, few would actually side against it) doesn't make it less relevant.

I imagine a lot of people felt the same way about the 2nd amendment until the whole anti-gun thing started up.

Seeing as there hasn't been a war on US soil there hasn't been a need to forcibly quarter military soldiers on private property. The third amendment only says that the Government can't force civilians to house and feed the military. There actually is a thing known as OHA and BAH which you non-military types have zero clue about.

Any who the argument still stands that any reasoning or ability to abolish the 2nd Amendment would also be capable of Abolishing the 1st, 4th, 5th and so on. There have been several attempts as abolishing the 1st, typically disguised as "FOR THE CHILDREN!!" regulation.

Your argument still relies on a slippery slope fallacy.

(Thanks for the condescension though!)

Yet it's one of the few places where it actually applies and is valid. There have been attempts to shutter and reduce the protections of the 1st Amendment with the most successful being "FOR THE CHILDREN!!!".

The bill of rights and it's resulting effect on the Constitution should not be messed with. Not in the 1800s, not in the 20th century, not now and not 100 years from now.

What yourself and the other liberal activists are demanding is nothing short of the abolishment of the 2nd Amendment, one of the pillars of the Constitution. An armed population that prevented the Government from maintaining a monopoly on the use of violence was so essential that its importance was placed above that of a fair legal system. Only the right to freely criticism the Government was considered more important then the right to be armed. Any rational or reason that successfully abolishes one of the most important amendments on the Constitution can also be used to abolish the others. Your not dumb, you know this. Young liberal activists will not be the ones writing these laws, your merely pawns for those using you to achieve their political goals. Or did your miss Egypt.

Western civilization is based on a system of precedents. Once something becomes acceptable once, it becomes acceptable to do again and again.

More very weak arguments to try and force people into thinking things are going to collapse if the 2nd is abolished.
It doesn't mean its gona snowball and your going to lose your right to vote, or suddenly the goverment is going to take over the country (Btw most of the force behind that are the people themselves)

Grow the hell up. It can be changed and it is out of date.
Using it as a cockblock for a better country is pathetic. I mean whats the point of putting people in power today if rights over 100 years old is still going to govern the people.

I don't really need to hear from a British person about problems in a country that is not theirs, especially when it comes to rights that aren't there's, even more so when it is their nation that we rebelled against and that gave us the reason to require a lot of the protections from tyranny we have.

the 2nd amendment isn't out of date.

If they actually make a legitimate attempt to change it, or appeal it, there will be bloodshed, I promise you that.

The 2nd amendment is a level of protection against tyranny, if you remove it, tyranny will happen, history likes to repeat itself.


You obviously don't understand what a constitution is...

The second amendment was created by far nobler men than have been in office for a long time. Many people would fight oppression, but not a lot of people would ensure that they themselves couldn't be the tyrants, and that their successors couldn't either.

Slavery is a glaring hypocrisy that must be mentioned, but noble men nearly 100 years later did away with that, regardless of their motivations, and 100 years later again, cultural change was brought about.

They weren't perfect men, but they tried.

lol you threatening this yourself or have some power to look into the future.
Stop scaremongering.
Hopefully Democracy will win and change this mess.
The same democracy being rammed down the throats of the people in the middle east for greater good.
Lets practice democracy at home eh.
I maybe from the UK, but guess what, guns being available in the US means theres a bigger influx of imported guns to control here and the rest of the world that has them banned.
So as well as i care for the inocents there i also care about it affecting the underground nutters here.
Angry about something that happened ages ago that doesnt affect you?
Means i should still be mad at german people right?

All im getting now is "we need to keep the 2nd incase of tyranny".
As i said the power your refering to is made up of the people.
And "IF", and thats a big if, that happens do you really think a few guns in the house is gonna stop a group with access to tanks, choppers, missiles, etc?

The United States is not a Democracy.

I'm not fear mongering, I'm stating based upon history and human nature.

I'm not angry, just I find it ludicrous that as an outsider you try to dictate how we run things.

You just don't get it.

also: I'm not threatening anything or anybody, just stating what will happen.

The United States is a republic designed to be for the people, the government derives it's power from the people, and does not have the authority to remove rights from the people, if it tries, it's committing treason against the people.

I've never demanded anything of the sort.

Until you can logically fill in the intermediate step(s) between enacting gun regulation and having constitutional amendments fall like dominoes, it remains a slippery slope argument.

Some advice from Clinton:
Bill Clinton to Democrats: Don’t trivialize gun culture

To be fair, while I don't enjoy the fallacy, it wouldn't come to me as a suprise to find out that certain groups of people would want to collectively systematically erode away our freedoms to create a fascist state, not saying they are, and I don't believe most people would want that (even Obama). I do find however that most people who advocate for "gun control" wouldn't have a problem in restricting gun ownership to a near ban, and that is eventually what they want, to me that is unacceptable.

& Bill, I'm on the fence will 'ol Bill, still mad at him for enabling the banks to create the housing bubble...

You and your sort most certainly have demanded exactly that. You desire to remake society to correct any and all perceived "social issues" with the only requirement that post-change you remain the ruling class.

Your premise is that firearms are not needed for day to day life in a modern society. Firearms, being weapons and thus intrinsically dangerous, should thus be solely the provision of the state and that private ownership should not be allowed.

That is the abolishment of the 2nd Amendment, plain and simple. The only way to change an Amendment is through section V of the Constitution. You need 3/4ths of the States to ratify it, good luck getting 38 states to sign on to that idea.

Instead young liberal activists like yourself attempt to create virtual bans on firearms through the legislative process in the hopes that the courts don't strike them down.

The 2nd Amendment is very clear that your right to own firearms shall not be denied. The Supreme Court has already upheld this interpretation so any liberal attempt to twist it would be ignorant.

Anyhow the entire purpose of those Amendments, formerly known a the bill of rights, is to ensure that the citizens of the USA have freedom from state oppression. No single one of them is all-important, each one is a safety device, a stumbling block, a barrier that needs to be removed prior to a fascist authoritarian regime from being instituted. Their all protected by the same documents and by the same measures. Find a way to defeat one and you have a recipe to defeat all.

After all, "FOR THE CHILDREN!!!" can be used in a twisted way to make a valid argument for the abolishment of the 1st Amendment. Silly things like free speech could possibly pose a corruption influence on our youth and thus that vile free speech should be denied and only state approved histories and texts should be allowed. Silly things like due process and protecting private property would prevent state sanctioned police forces from investigating and catching child molesters and sex offenders. To ensure the safety of our children we should abolish the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th amendments.

You and those like you, would remove every amendment as its a barrier to you creating your idealized perfect world. Sorry to burst your bubble but your not god, you don't get to dictate what others can and can not do.

I repeat, I have never suggested anything resembling abolishment of the 2nd Amendment. Spouting generalizations like 'you and your kind' really make you sound ridiculous.

The thing is, the pro-gun side (for lack of a better term) doesn't need the slippery slope argument at all. The law, the courts, public opinion, and American culture have all been in favor of guns since the country's inception. There's also a healthy argument for the necessity of guns in a society where guns can't realistically be made to just all go away. You can really drop the doom-and-gloom scenarios because all they do is make eyes roll.

Amusing people wax nostalgic about the 2nd amendment but have little to say as vehicles like the patriot act, stop and frisk, citizens united, ndaa and torture have dominated american politics.

Where has the suburban rage been? Is the 2nd amendment more important than the 1st, 4th, 8th? Cause the govt has been overreaching on both sides of the aisle.

Oh yes, they have. I find it quite odd to be on the libertarian/republican side with this one, but both sides are very guilty of attacking the bill of rights.

I still say Bush should have been impeached, and should be on trial for treason.

They be relenting to make it so we cant have nice things.

Their all equally important. I absolutely hate the Patriot act and all it's additions / extensions. The NDAA is a yearly bill that is passed to fund the Military, sometimes things get stuck into it that have zero place being inside a defense appropriation bill. Citizens United was BS, corporations are not people and should not get to donate fund to political organizations anonymously. I could go on and on about the attacks on the other Amendments as I think their all attempts to create an authoritarian state (Liberal, Conservative or otherwise) and to line the pockets of those well positioned for the windfall.

Thing is, there aren't a bunch of people running around on TV demanding the abolishment of those other Amendments "FOR THE CHILDREN!!!". There are people with political agendas fanning the flames of the current craze with the goal of creating a de-facto ban on firearms. Look no further then the combined positions of "ban on Assault Weapons" with the new definition of "Assault Weapon" being "any firearm with a single feature found on a military rifle". Seeing as I've spent a rather large portion of my life around "military style rifles" I feel I can say with authority that nearly any firearm in the world could have a single "feature found on a military rifle". If it has a scope mount it's now an assault rifle. If it's got a pistol grip, it's an assault weapon. If it's got a retractable / detachable stock it's now an assault weapon. If it's got a polycarbonate (or plastic) stock, it's now an assault rifle. If it has selectable sights (windage & elevation knobs) it's now an assault rifle. Any weapon that's not a single shot breech loaded shotgun would be considered an "assault style weapon".

Once a law such as that is created every liberal state will immediately start issuing bans on every kind of weapon imaginable. By the "new" definition



That would be an "assault weapon". (Well maybe I'm going a bit far but I think the point has been driven home)