Interesting Conversation with an ANTI

[TheSaint]

I've known a few good lawyers in my time that do good work on behalf of citizens. That being said, there's a substantial number of them that are as arrogant as all get out, and take every opportunity to inform you of your inferiority as a non-lawyer.

 

[jbrown50]

The anti-gun folks are so focused on achieving their goal of a government controlled utopia that they've totally abandoned any semblance of rational thinking.

Amending the Constitution to repeal the Second Amendment with subsequent bans and confiscations (even if they could somehow accomplish it without civil war) would open up the flood gates to the largest firearms black market the world has ever seen.

The results of the 18th Amendment was just a little taste of it.

 

[PGT]

One of the first things she pointed out was that she was an attorney.

a DHS lawyer?

 

[Nanook]

I seem to remember from high school that if the Bill of Rights was not added to the Constitution it would not have been ratified.

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me it wouldn't be that simple as to just remove the 2nd Amendment.

I may be off base here, since high school is 40 years in the past.

 

[welshdude]

You are probably not going to make much headway against this lady. If I were to try I'd point out that her comment above is a weakness. The Bill of Rights are all equally old. I might try to point out her rights to free speech, assembly, to remain secure in her papers and possessions, to practice her religion of preference, are all protected by amendments that are just as old as the second, and would she be so dismissive of those rights based on an argument of age? She's either cherry-picking or she would agree the other rights are just as suspect as she views the right to keep and bear arms.


It is always amazing and saddening to me to see how many people are not only willing to see our Constitutional rights eroded, but are in fact anxious to see them gone.
Scary. Very very scary, indeed.

Her arguments and pomposity are very similar to the Cruz/Feinstein exchange at a Senate meeting a few months back. He asked her very much the same questions. She got huffy and tried to deride Senator Cruz by avoiding the question. That and referring to him as 'the Junior Senator' several times. She boasted of 30 years in the Senate...I'd say her sell-by date is WAY overdue. Just like the woman in the OP. You can't argue with stupidity and ignorance. One can fix ignorance, though. If they're open to being educated. Problem is most liberals think they already are...

 

[justice06rr]

Wow what a total ignoramus. Most anti's are blind leading the blind. They have no clue and no common sense whatsoever. No use in arguing with them IMO.

I wonder what that lady would do if her house got broken into and all she has is a bat...

 

[danez71]

"The history you discuss was over 200 years ago. Much has changed."

Not sure what the context was here...was she going down the weapons have changed path?

Just a guess on my part... but in my experience, when an anti goes down that road they are saying the our current govt isn't any threat to the population.


No genocide threat...No religious persecution threat...

No threat of taking away our rights. Oh.. wait... never mind

 

[herrwalther]

It amazes me how some Antis think. How the First Amendment can apply to texts and Facebook but as soon as the Second gets mentioned "Oh the Constitution is out of date." Really? Hypocrisy stinks like a bloated horse in a Texas sun.

 

[mdauben]

It amazes me how some Antis seem to lack the ability to logically think.

Fixed that for you.

 

[chrisb507]

I don't think most antis simply want to "take our guns" or achieve a government controlled utopia. The just want to "feel" safer.

I usually defuse these arguments by asking: How would (background checks/"assault weapons" bans/licensing/etc.) ACTUALLY MAKE you safer?

 

[Warners]

Luckily for her, there IS a method to get the 2nd amendment (or any other) repealed. It's quite simple, actually. All you have to do is THIS:

For an amendment to be proposed or repealed, it requires two/thirds of both federal legislative bodies -- House and Senate -- to vote in the affirmative (two/thirds in the House, two/thirds in the Senate).

It also requires two/thirds of the state legislatures of the 50 states to vote in the affirmative.

The move to propose or repeal can begin with the American people, with a majority of the populations in two thirds of the 50 states voting for the amendment or its repeal. However, even if the people do this, the push to propose or repeal still has to garner two/thirds House, two/thirds Senate, and two/thirds of all 50 state legislatures.

The difficulty required to change this amendment ought to give us pause. For our Founders went out of their way to be sure the rights protected by the Bill of Rights could not be easily stripped of their amendments.

So have at it, Ms or Mrs Gun-Grabber.....but I'd say you have your work cut out for you.

Warner

 

[Elm Creek Smith]

I've had anti-rights people sneer that we don't have to worry about the British invading anymore and that we 1) don't have to fight the Indians or 2) hunt to feed our families.

They get upset and call me a "Fascist" or a "NAZI," neither of which they can define, or a traitor when I point out that the Minutemen and militia at Lexington Green and Concord Bridge were resisting the "duly constituted government" and its "proper governmental authorities." When I point out that the criminal street gangs that prowl our large metropolitan areas and motorcycle gangs are just as dangerous, or even moreso, than the Indians, they scoff that we have the police to protect us. They don't want to hear about Warren vs. The District of Columbia or Castle Rock vs. Gonzales that decided that the police have no duty to protect individuals. Finally, they decry "blood sports" when I explain that hunting is the only viable wildlife management tool available to us unless they want us to reintroduce wolves and grizzly bears all across the United States. They also hate it when I point out that game is naturally organic and free of water/salt solutions, antibiotics, and hormones.

The anti-rights people are anti-freedom and anti-health.

ECS

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

You have to pass a test and get a license to drive a car; why not something similar for guns?

You have to pass a test and get a license to drive a car on public roads - not to purchase or sell a car or use it on your own property. As Dave Kopel already pointed out, I'd be delighted if guns were regulated as little as cars.

The history you discuss was over 200 years ago. Much has changed.

Which of the remaining Bill of Rights are subject to the 200 year ago test? You only get as much privacy as any home in a 20 family village with multiple families living in one house? Cruel and unusual punishment is interpreted by what people considered "OK" 200 years ago (public flogging, hangings, stocks in the town square?). The First Amendment is limited to only the Gutenberg press?

Disappointing to see such weak reasoning from a government attorney. For someone who FEELS so strongly she is pushing a social media campaign, she hasn't even spent 10 minutes researching the issue.