General Discussion

Skittles

(171,791 posts)

24. needs to be rewritten so stupid people can understand it

Reply to Skip Intro (Original post)

Mon Apr 7, 2014, 11:11 PM

Apr 2014

Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

80 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Should the Second Amendment be Abolished or Defended? [View all] Skip Intro Apr 2014 OP

Other. Amended... El Supremo Apr 2014 #1

Interesting... cherokeeprogressive Apr 2014 #19

+1, n/t RKP5637 Apr 2014 #37

The 2nd Amendment should be defended at all costs LittleBlue Apr 2014 #2

Excellent points. n/t Skip Intro Apr 2014 #3

How does abolishing the 2nd Amendment mean taking away guns? onehandle Apr 2014 #4

What would be the point of abolishing the right to bear arms LittleBlue Apr 2014 #11

Often overlooked Puzzledtraveller Apr 2014 #14

Yep, it would be a huge black market! Excellent points! n/t RKP5637 Apr 2014 #29

Abolished. The 2nd Amendment overpowers 'states rights' not to mention jurisdictions rights. onehandle Apr 2014 #5

Federal supremacy. The Constitution always trumps "states' rights". Spider Jerusalem Apr 2014 #13

Oh yeah Duckhunter935 Apr 2014 #15

Do you not support incorporation of rights by the 14th Amendment? NutmegYankee Apr 2014 #17

So few do... cherokeeprogressive Apr 2014 #67

Sorry you don't like the results of the poll so far, and must cry foul rather Skip Intro Apr 2014 #20

I'm not even a gun type person, but abolishing the 2nd amendment would RKP5637 Apr 2014 #35

wishful thinking pipoman Apr 2014 #23

if they take away our guns the Communist will come in and take over anyway Douglas Carpenter Apr 2014 #6

No, I'll have to get another. nt Eleanors38 Apr 2014 #7

Only certain people can legally have guns now, despite your reading comprehension abilities. nt Electric Monk Apr 2014 #8

Personal insult aside, I should have revised that choice, but votes had already been cast. Skip Intro Apr 2014 #16

Law enforcement is the last place expansion of guns should occur. A HERETIC I AM Apr 2014 #53

Repealed. Spider Jerusalem Apr 2014 #9

Actually the National Guard is more like a reserve unit. NutmegYankee Apr 2014 #18

And the USA has a standing army. Spider Jerusalem Apr 2014 #25

The idea was to have citizens who were familiar with arms and could readily form into militias NutmegYankee Apr 2014 #31

"If we were invaded"...by whom? Spider Jerusalem Apr 2014 #40

Ask residents of Gettysburg or Antietem (or St. Alban's, VT, even...) Recursion Apr 2014 #43

Battles fought by militia units in Federal service, akin to the modern National Guard? Spider Jerusalem Apr 2014 #54

Or the Whiskey Rebellion Recursion Apr 2014 #56

It's still in law just in case. NutmegYankee Apr 2014 #44

Actually, it isn't very relevant at all. Not unless you happen to be a strict constructionist. Spider Jerusalem Apr 2014 #50

The intent is needed to show that while technology changed, the right still applies NutmegYankee Apr 2014 #52

Have you actually read the Constitution? Spider Jerusalem Apr 2014 #58

Yes I have, multiple times and completely. NutmegYankee Apr 2014 #60

The governors of the respective states appoint the officers of their state National Guards. Spider Jerusalem Apr 2014 #62

And on that we have to differ NutmegYankee Apr 2014 #64

You can differ if you want, it doesn't make you right: Spider Jerusalem Apr 2014 #71

I am going to edit because I need to research more before commenting oneofthe99 Apr 2014 #10

It should be defended Chisox08 Apr 2014 #12

Always the same results every time pipoman Apr 2014 #21

Defended. Jasana Apr 2014 #22

needs to be rewritten so stupid people can understand it Skittles Apr 2014 #24

WIN Electric Monk Apr 2014 #26

. hrmjustin Apr 2014 #30

nailed it Puzzledtraveller Apr 2014 #46

Agreed davidpdx Apr 2014 #74

"Stupid people" like Justice Stevens? beevul Apr 2014 #76

other: defended, within reason. dionysus Apr 2014 #27

The poll excludes any number of options that are not "abolish" or "defend." Maedhros Apr 2014 #28

at the very least, it needs a grammar check yurbud Apr 2014 #73

The 2nd Amendment is a red herring here Recursion Apr 2014 #32

It needs to be clarified, it's grammatically ambiguous in modern english yodermon Apr 2014 #33

Well regulated goes back to the Revolution. NutmegYankee Apr 2014 #39

It should only be defended out of fear of a zombie apocalypse. Vashta Nerada Apr 2014 #34

I'd settle for it being understood. rug Apr 2014 #36

2nd Amendment Supporters are in the majority on DU as I type this. Skip Intro Apr 2014 #38

The top option has 54% as I post this, for clarity. nt Electric Monk Apr 2014 #41

Top option is "Defended, not abolished." OP has not been edited n/t Skip Intro Apr 2014 #47

Your post (#38) has been, though. nt Electric Monk Apr 2014 #48

Sure has. You got a point in there somewhere? Skip Intro Apr 2014 #49

The top option (defend) has 58% as I post this, for clarity. nt Skip Intro Apr 2014 #51

74% if we look only at option one and "abolish" NYC_SKP Apr 2014 #70

reminds me of Christie and his report Skittles Apr 2014 #42

Now you hate me again, don't you? n/t Skip Intro Apr 2014 #45

What's the argument/discussion? flvegan Apr 2014 #55

Um, whether the 2nd Amendment be abolished or defended. Seems pretty clear to me. n/t Skip Intro Apr 2014 #57

You don't have one, cool. flvegan Apr 2014 #59

Hey dude - it's a poll with clear choices. That's enough for me. Sorry it isn't enough for you. Skip Intro Apr 2014 #63

"Defend" the 2nd amendement? Oakenshield Apr 2014 #61

"Would the NRA trolls kindly sod off?" Name three- and show your work... friendly_iconoclast Apr 2014 #65

Amended so that... TreasonousBastard Apr 2014 #66

Just interpret it as written. See Justice Stevens' in Heller, and other 3 sensible Justices. Hoyt Apr 2014 #68

The same justice stevens that said this? beevul Apr 2014 #75

i don't know anybody who defends it as it is written veganlush Apr 2014 #69

It should be amended or clarified as to what (well regulated) means. doc03 Apr 2014 #72

Replaced or abolished. mwrguy Apr 2014 #77

In its present form, it's a complete anachronism Warpy Apr 2014 #78

it should be clarified so as not to be interpreted that common sense controls, regulation, Douglas Carpenter Apr 2014 #79

sorry locking azurnoir Apr 2014 #80