The 2nd Amendment and the 13th

[AsuraSyn]

The Herald of War

AsuraSyn

Ahh.
<~mildly distracted by puppies atm and missed that.
Actually, there was a backlash amongst the rest of the Constitution because of that repeal. That amendment wasn't just removed, it was replaced by the 21st. Essentially a ban was removed and a right secured. Rather the opposite of the suggested repealing of the 2nd.
A better example might be the installation of the 13th and the repealing of slave owner rights.

What backlash in the Constitution?

And yes, that would be a better example. But in either case, my point is that the amendments are independent of each other. There is no domino effect necessitated.

And I'd say the reason why it makes no sense to link them is since just because someone does not believe in a right to bear arms, that does not mean they will be okay with slavery. If people get rid of one thing, that does not mean they will want to get rid of every other thing.

The addition of the 21st amendment, which changed how laws across the nation had to be written, both then and now.

No, person A who wants to repeal the 2nd Amendment is highly unlikely to want to repeal the 13th, however, it's a democracy. Person B might want to repeal the 13th and use person A's repealing of the 2nd as his precedent.
"If we were okay with removing this right, why not this one?"

[The Herald of War]

AsuraSyn

The Herald of War

AsuraSyn

Ahh.
<~mildly distracted by puppies atm and missed that.
Actually, there was a backlash amongst the rest of the Constitution because of that repeal. That amendment wasn't just removed, it was replaced by the 21st. Essentially a ban was removed and a right secured. Rather the opposite of the suggested repealing of the 2nd.
A better example might be the installation of the 13th and the repealing of slave owner rights.

What backlash in the Constitution?

And yes, that would be a better example. But in either case, my point is that the amendments are independent of each other. There is no domino effect necessitated.

And I'd say the reason why it makes no sense to link them is since just because someone does not believe in a right to bear arms, that does not mean they will be okay with slavery. If people get rid of one thing, that does not mean they will want to get rid of every other thing.

The addition of the 21st amendment, which changed how laws across the nation had to be written, both then and now.

No, person A who wants to repeal the 2nd Amendment is highly unlikely to want to repeal the 13th, however, it's a democracy. Person B might want to repeal the 13th and use person A's repealing of the 2nd as his precedent.
"If we were okay with removing this right, why not this one?"

And what kind of person will listen to that kind of argument? The reasons I don't want slavery are utterly unrelated to its status as an amendment. All I see is that it gives fuel for a really bad argument, along the lines of "You let gays marry, why not let people marry dogs?"

[AsuraSyn]

The Herald of War

AsuraSyn

The Herald of War

AsuraSyn

Ahh.
<~mildly distracted by puppies atm and missed that.
Actually, there was a backlash amongst the rest of the Constitution because of that repeal. That amendment wasn't just removed, it was replaced by the 21st. Essentially a ban was removed and a right secured. Rather the opposite of the suggested repealing of the 2nd.
A better example might be the installation of the 13th and the repealing of slave owner rights.

What backlash in the Constitution?

And yes, that would be a better example. But in either case, my point is that the amendments are independent of each other. There is no domino effect necessitated.

And I'd say the reason why it makes no sense to link them is since just because someone does not believe in a right to bear arms, that does not mean they will be okay with slavery. If people get rid of one thing, that does not mean they will want to get rid of every other thing.

The addition of the 21st amendment, which changed how laws across the nation had to be written, both then and now.

No, person A who wants to repeal the 2nd Amendment is highly unlikely to want to repeal the 13th, however, it's a democracy. Person B might want to repeal the 13th and use person A's repealing of the 2nd as his precedent.
"If we were okay with removing this right, why not this one?"

And what kind of person will listen to that kind of argument? The reasons I don't want slavery are utterly unrelated to its status as an amendment. All I see is that it gives fuel for a really bad argument, along the lines of "You let gays marry, why not let people marry dogs?"

All salaried labor is a form of slavery, albeit, less violent than overt slavery which is currently illegal. We allow people the right to do with their lives and bodies as they wish. A sick person may refuse medical care, a parent can refuse to vaccinate their child despite the inherent risk to other people's children and families. We allow people to choose their own paths to walk in this country, that is what Liberty is!
How then, can we honestly say that it is not permissible for a person to choose a lifetime of service when so many already do?
How many of our parents served their company for the duration of their physically able life? How is this any different from overt slavery? Well, there's the lack of job security for one. [hold for laughter] But also the right to leave that service, a right that overt slavery would not rescind as one would be able to chose their masters or even to influence their sale to another if they found their duties unpleasant under one owner.
Now, I for one can't see much harm in a person choosing to serve one employer for safety, shelter, food and care instead of a pittance of money that continues to lose value every day.
How can we, as the Land of Freedom, not allow people the right to chose this life of relative security simply because the option has been abused in the past? Hell, during the Civil War, many slaves and indentured servants fought for their supposedly cruel Masters! They were less forced into service than the new immigrants at Ellis Island. How can we claim to uphold the idea of liberty when we serve a government that can, still today, compel into military service free men and women of this nation yet forbid private citizens the right to guarantee a lifetime of service for a lifetime of security?

And that's how it will go.
All it really takes is one affluent speaker with no moral center, and you fall back into evil.

[The Herald of War]

AsuraSyn

The Herald of War

AsuraSyn

The Herald of War

AsuraSyn

Ahh.
<~mildly distracted by puppies atm and missed that.
Actually, there was a backlash amongst the rest of the Constitution because of that repeal. That amendment wasn't just removed, it was replaced by the 21st. Essentially a ban was removed and a right secured. Rather the opposite of the suggested repealing of the 2nd.
A better example might be the installation of the 13th and the repealing of slave owner rights.

What backlash in the Constitution?

And yes, that would be a better example. But in either case, my point is that the amendments are independent of each other. There is no domino effect necessitated.

And I'd say the reason why it makes no sense to link them is since just because someone does not believe in a right to bear arms, that does not mean they will be okay with slavery. If people get rid of one thing, that does not mean they will want to get rid of every other thing.

The addition of the 21st amendment, which changed how laws across the nation had to be written, both then and now.

No, person A who wants to repeal the 2nd Amendment is highly unlikely to want to repeal the 13th, however, it's a democracy. Person B might want to repeal the 13th and use person A's repealing of the 2nd as his precedent.
"If we were okay with removing this right, why not this one?"

And what kind of person will listen to that kind of argument? The reasons I don't want slavery are utterly unrelated to its status as an amendment. All I see is that it gives fuel for a really bad argument, along the lines of "You let gays marry, why not let people marry dogs?"

All salaried labor is a form of slavery, albeit, less violent than overt slavery which is currently illegal. We allow people the right to do with their lives and bodies as they wish. A sick person may refuse medical care, a parent can refuse to vaccinate their child despite the inherent risk to other people's children and families. We allow people to choose their own paths to walk in this country, that is what Liberty is!
How then, can we honestly say that it is not permissible for a person to choose a lifetime of service when so many already do?
How many of our parents served their company for the duration of their physically able life? How is this any different from overt slavery? Well, there's the lack of job security for one. [hold for laughter] But also the right to leave that service, a right that overt slavery would not rescind as one would be able to chose their masters or even to influence their sale to another if they found their duties unpleasant under one owner.
Now, I for one can't see much harm in a person choosing to serve one employer for safety, shelter, food and care instead of a pittance of money that continues to lose value every day.
How can we, as the Land of Freedom, not allow people the right to chose this life of relative security simply because the option has been abused in the past? Hell, during the Civil War, many slaves and indentured servants fought for their supposedly cruel Masters! They were less forced into service than the new immigrants at Ellis Island. How can we claim to uphold the idea of liberty when we serve a government that can, still today, compel into military service free men and women of this nation yet forbid private citizens the right to guarantee a lifetime of service for a lifetime of security?

And that's how it will go.
All it really takes is one affluent speaker with no moral center, and you fall back into evil.

The problem is that that has absolutely nothing to do with the second amendment. The merit of that argument is unchanged whether we whole heartedly support the 2nd or whether we are utterly against it, or anywhere inbetween. You've made an argument for slavery(that I don't want to evaluate right now as it'd be off topic and feels rather unnecessary), but the problem is that it doesn't counter what I said. That the amendments are independent of one another.

[AsuraSyn]

The Herald of War

AsuraSyn

The Herald of War

AsuraSyn

The Herald of War

AsuraSyn

Ahh.
<~mildly distracted by puppies atm and missed that.
Actually, there was a backlash amongst the rest of the Constitution because of that repeal. That amendment wasn't just removed, it was replaced by the 21st. Essentially a ban was removed and a right secured. Rather the opposite of the suggested repealing of the 2nd.
A better example might be the installation of the 13th and the repealing of slave owner rights.

What backlash in the Constitution?

And yes, that would be a better example. But in either case, my point is that the amendments are independent of each other. There is no domino effect necessitated.

And I'd say the reason why it makes no sense to link them is since just because someone does not believe in a right to bear arms, that does not mean they will be okay with slavery. If people get rid of one thing, that does not mean they will want to get rid of every other thing.

The addition of the 21st amendment, which changed how laws across the nation had to be written, both then and now.

No, person A who wants to repeal the 2nd Amendment is highly unlikely to want to repeal the 13th, however, it's a democracy. Person B might want to repeal the 13th and use person A's repealing of the 2nd as his precedent.
"If we were okay with removing this right, why not this one?"

And what kind of person will listen to that kind of argument? The reasons I don't want slavery are utterly unrelated to its status as an amendment. All I see is that it gives fuel for a really bad argument, along the lines of "You let gays marry, why not let people marry dogs?"

All salaried labor is a form of slavery, albeit, less violent than overt slavery which is currently illegal. We allow people the right to do with their lives and bodies as they wish. A sick person may refuse medical care, a parent can refuse to vaccinate their child despite the inherent risk to other people's children and families. We allow people to choose their own paths to walk in this country, that is what Liberty is!
How then, can we honestly say that it is not permissible for a person to choose a lifetime of service when so many already do?
How many of our parents served their company for the duration of their physically able life? How is this any different from overt slavery? Well, there's the lack of job security for one. [hold for laughter] But also the right to leave that service, a right that overt slavery would not rescind as one would be able to chose their masters or even to influence their sale to another if they found their duties unpleasant under one owner.
Now, I for one can't see much harm in a person choosing to serve one employer for safety, shelter, food and care instead of a pittance of money that continues to lose value every day.
How can we, as the Land of Freedom, not allow people the right to chose this life of relative security simply because the option has been abused in the past? Hell, during the Civil War, many slaves and indentured servants fought for their supposedly cruel Masters! They were less forced into service than the new immigrants at Ellis Island. How can we claim to uphold the idea of liberty when we serve a government that can, still today, compel into military service free men and women of this nation yet forbid private citizens the right to guarantee a lifetime of service for a lifetime of security?

And that's how it will go.
All it really takes is one affluent speaker with no moral center, and you fall back into evil.

The problem is that that has absolutely nothing to do with the second amendment. The merit of that argument is unchanged whether we whole heartedly support the 2nd or whether we are utterly against it, or anywhere inbetween. You've made an argument for slavery(that I don't want to evaluate right now as it'd be off topic and feels rather unnecessary), but the problem is that it doesn't counter what I said. That the amendments are independent of one another.

Logically, they are, and one thing has nothing to do with the other.
However, logic and the law have never been on speaking terms, and with the magic word "precedent" you can ******** people as hard as you want to. My point is, that by repealing one part of the Constitution, any other part is up for grabs as well, and eventually, someone will want to repeal something you hold dear. Slavery, free speech, freedom of religion, whathaveyou, will be up on the chopping block eventually, and it's rather hard to say it was okay to kill this part of the Constitution, but it's not okay to kill that part.

[The Herald of War]

AsuraSyn

The Herald of War

AsuraSyn

The Herald of War

AsuraSyn

The addition of the 21st amendment, which changed how laws across the nation had to be written, both then and now.

No, person A who wants to repeal the 2nd Amendment is highly unlikely to want to repeal the 13th, however, it's a democracy. Person B might want to repeal the 13th and use person A's repealing of the 2nd as his precedent.
"If we were okay with removing this right, why not this one?"

And what kind of person will listen to that kind of argument? The reasons I don't want slavery are utterly unrelated to its status as an amendment. All I see is that it gives fuel for a really bad argument, along the lines of "You let gays marry, why not let people marry dogs?"

All salaried labor is a form of slavery, albeit, less violent than overt slavery which is currently illegal. We allow people the right to do with their lives and bodies as they wish. A sick person may refuse medical care, a parent can refuse to vaccinate their child despite the inherent risk to other people's children and families. We allow people to choose their own paths to walk in this country, that is what Liberty is!
How then, can we honestly say that it is not permissible for a person to choose a lifetime of service when so many already do?
How many of our parents served their company for the duration of their physically able life? How is this any different from overt slavery? Well, there's the lack of job security for one. [hold for laughter] But also the right to leave that service, a right that overt slavery would not rescind as one would be able to chose their masters or even to influence their sale to another if they found their duties unpleasant under one owner.
Now, I for one can't see much harm in a person choosing to serve one employer for safety, shelter, food and care instead of a pittance of money that continues to lose value every day.
How can we, as the Land of Freedom, not allow people the right to chose this life of relative security simply because the option has been abused in the past? Hell, during the Civil War, many slaves and indentured servants fought for their supposedly cruel Masters! They were less forced into service than the new immigrants at Ellis Island. How can we claim to uphold the idea of liberty when we serve a government that can, still today, compel into military service free men and women of this nation yet forbid private citizens the right to guarantee a lifetime of service for a lifetime of security?

And that's how it will go.
All it really takes is one affluent speaker with no moral center, and you fall back into evil.

The problem is that that has absolutely nothing to do with the second amendment. The merit of that argument is unchanged whether we whole heartedly support the 2nd or whether we are utterly against it, or anywhere inbetween. You've made an argument for slavery(that I don't want to evaluate right now as it'd be off topic and feels rather unnecessary), but the problem is that it doesn't counter what I said. That the amendments are independent of one another.

Logically, they are, and one thing has nothing to do with the other.
However, logic and the law have never been on speaking terms, and with the magic word "precedent" you can ******** people as hard as you want to. My point is, that by repealing one part of the Constitution, any other part is up for grabs as well, and eventually, someone will want to repeal something you hold dear. Slavery, free speech, freedom of religion, whathaveyou, will be up on the chopping block eventually, and it's rather hard to say it was okay to kill this part of the Constitution, but it's not okay to kill that part.

But we already saw one part repealed, the precedent is there.

And the thing is, I can say it's not okay to kill this other part for the reasons I support this other part. I would not defend it on the merit of "It's part of the Constitution". For the 13th I'd say "I am against this because [insert argument against slavery]" not "I am against this because it is the 13th amendment". An amenmdent isn't right just because it is an amendment.

[AsuraSyn]

The Herald of War

AsuraSyn

The Herald of War

The problem is that that has absolutely nothing to do with the second amendment. The merit of that argument is unchanged whether we whole heartedly support the 2nd or whether we are utterly against it, or anywhere inbetween. You've made an argument for slavery(that I don't want to evaluate right now as it'd be off topic and feels rather unnecessary), but the problem is that it doesn't counter what I said. That the amendments are independent of one another.

Logically, they are, and one thing has nothing to do with the other.
However, logic and the law have never been on speaking terms, and with the magic word "precedent" you can ******** people as hard as you want to. My point is, that by repealing one part of the Constitution, any other part is up for grabs as well, and eventually, someone will want to repeal something you hold dear. Slavery, free speech, freedom of religion, whathaveyou, will be up on the chopping block eventually, and it's rather hard to say it was okay to kill this part of the Constitution, but it's not okay to kill that part.

But we already saw one part repealed, the precedent is there.

And the thing is, I can say it's not okay to kill this other part for the reasons I support this other part. I would not defend it on the merit of "It's part of the Constitution". For the 13th I'd say "I am against this because [insert argument against slavery]" not "I am against this because it is the 13th amendment". An amenmdent isn't right just because it is an amendment.

But there are equal arguments for and against anything.
Everything is debatable. By removing one section of the founding laws of this country, you open up debate on all of them. By and large, the original Amendments, the Bill of Rights, are often viewed as sacrosanct, whereas the dozens of later ones are more mutable. By removing one of the original founding principals of the nation you open up the veritable Pandora's Box on all other inherent rights.
Saying slavery is wrong is not really an argument. I can easily turn it against you by saying that your opinion is not absolute truth and by wanting to take choice away from people, you are violating their civil liberties and forcing a dictatorship upon a nation built of freedoms!
Now, obviously, that's complete crap, but it can be compelling, and that's the real danger.
By removing such a profoundly supported Amendment, you shake faith in all law and the concrete nature of life in this society and thus you invite the dangers of conflicting opinions onto the most tenuous stage in our legal system.

[The Herald of War]

AsuraSyn

The Herald of War

AsuraSyn

The Herald of War

The problem is that that has absolutely nothing to do with the second amendment. The merit of that argument is unchanged whether we whole heartedly support the 2nd or whether we are utterly against it, or anywhere inbetween. You've made an argument for slavery(that I don't want to evaluate right now as it'd be off topic and feels rather unnecessary), but the problem is that it doesn't counter what I said. That the amendments are independent of one another.

Logically, they are, and one thing has nothing to do with the other.
However, logic and the law have never been on speaking terms, and with the magic word "precedent" you can ******** people as hard as you want to. My point is, that by repealing one part of the Constitution, any other part is up for grabs as well, and eventually, someone will want to repeal something you hold dear. Slavery, free speech, freedom of religion, whathaveyou, will be up on the chopping block eventually, and it's rather hard to say it was okay to kill this part of the Constitution, but it's not okay to kill that part.

But we already saw one part repealed, the precedent is there.

And the thing is, I can say it's not okay to kill this other part for the reasons I support this other part. I would not defend it on the merit of "It's part of the Constitution". For the 13th I'd say "I am against this because [insert argument against slavery]" not "I am against this because it is the 13th amendment". An amenmdent isn't right just because it is an amendment.

But there are equal arguments for and against anything.
Everything is debatable. By removing one section of the founding laws of this country, you open up debate on all of them. By and large, the original Amendments, the Bill of Rights, are often viewed as sacrosanct, whereas the dozens of later ones are more mutable. By removing one of the original founding principals of the nation you open up the veritable Pandora's Box on all other inherent rights.
Saying slavery is wrong is not really an argument. I can easily turn it against you by saying that your opinion is not absolute truth and by wanting to take choice away from people, you are violating their civil liberties and forcing a dictatorship upon a nation built of freedoms!
Now, obviously, that's complete crap, but it can be compelling, and that's the real danger.
By removing such a profoundly supported Amendment, you shake faith in all law and the concrete nature of life in this society and thus you invite the dangers of conflicting opinions onto the most tenuous stage in our legal system.

I see no evidence there are equal arguments for and against anything.

The thing is, they are already open to debate. I see no Pandora's Box being opened because waht you fear already exists in the 21st amendment, the ability to repeal another amendment.

I didn't say 'slavery is wrong' though, I just didn't want to come up with an argument for it. Furthermore, you haven't turned it against me, you just went on and made some absurd counterclaim. It also is irrelevant to the second's status.

But I see no evidence that it will shake faith in all law. It is already possible for people to be against an amendment. People are not all so stupid they worship the Constitution. If it were so it would never be amended in the first place.

[AsuraSyn]

The Herald of War

AsuraSyn

The Herald of War

AsuraSyn

The Herald of War

The problem is that that has absolutely nothing to do with the second amendment. The merit of that argument is unchanged whether we whole heartedly support the 2nd or whether we are utterly against it, or anywhere inbetween. You've made an argument for slavery(that I don't want to evaluate right now as it'd be off topic and feels rather unnecessary), but the problem is that it doesn't counter what I said. That the amendments are independent of one another.

Logically, they are, and one thing has nothing to do with the other.
However, logic and the law have never been on speaking terms, and with the magic word "precedent" you can ******** people as hard as you want to. My point is, that by repealing one part of the Constitution, any other part is up for grabs as well, and eventually, someone will want to repeal something you hold dear. Slavery, free speech, freedom of religion, whathaveyou, will be up on the chopping block eventually, and it's rather hard to say it was okay to kill this part of the Constitution, but it's not okay to kill that part.

But we already saw one part repealed, the precedent is there.

And the thing is, I can say it's not okay to kill this other part for the reasons I support this other part. I would not defend it on the merit of "It's part of the Constitution". For the 13th I'd say "I am against this because [insert argument against slavery]" not "I am against this because it is the 13th amendment". An amenmdent isn't right just because it is an amendment.

But there are equal arguments for and against anything.
Everything is debatable. By removing one section of the founding laws of this country, you open up debate on all of them. By and large, the original Amendments, the Bill of Rights, are often viewed as sacrosanct, whereas the dozens of later ones are more mutable. By removing one of the original founding principals of the nation you open up the veritable Pandora's Box on all other inherent rights.
Saying slavery is wrong is not really an argument. I can easily turn it against you by saying that your opinion is not absolute truth and by wanting to take choice away from people, you are violating their civil liberties and forcing a dictatorship upon a nation built of freedoms!
Now, obviously, that's complete crap, but it can be compelling, and that's the real danger.
By removing such a profoundly supported Amendment, you shake faith in all law and the concrete nature of life in this society and thus you invite the dangers of conflicting opinions onto the most tenuous stage in our legal system.

I see no evidence there are equal arguments for and against anything.

The thing is, they are already open to debate. I see no Pandora's Box being opened because waht you fear already exists in the 21st amendment, the ability to repeal another amendment.

I didn't say 'slavery is wrong' though, I just didn't want to come up with an argument for it. Furthermore, you haven't turned it against me, you just went on and made some absurd counterclaim. It also is irrelevant to the second's status.

But I see no evidence that it will shake faith in all law. It is already possible for people to be against an amendment. People are not all so stupid they worship the Constitution. If it were so it would never be amended in the first place.

Ahh, but again, the 2nd Amendment is one of the Bill of Rights, whereas the 18th and 21st are later, more mutable, Amendments the nation was not founded on.
By going after one of the original ten, you're undercutting the founding of the nation in the public's eyes. People might not worship, per se, the Constitution, but they are stupid. Never doubt that and never underestimate the danger of a large group of stupid people.
As for my absurd counterclaim, well... have you ever seen Thank You For Smoking?

[The Herald of War]

AsuraSyn

The Herald of War

AsuraSyn

The Herald of War

AsuraSyn

The Herald of War

The problem is that that has absolutely nothing to do with the second amendment. The merit of that argument is unchanged whether we whole heartedly support the 2nd or whether we are utterly against it, or anywhere inbetween. You've made an argument for slavery(that I don't want to evaluate right now as it'd be off topic and feels rather unnecessary), but the problem is that it doesn't counter what I said. That the amendments are independent of one another.

Logically, they are, and one thing has nothing to do with the other.
However, logic and the law have never been on speaking terms, and with the magic word "precedent" you can ******** people as hard as you want to. My point is, that by repealing one part of the Constitution, any other part is up for grabs as well, and eventually, someone will want to repeal something you hold dear. Slavery, free speech, freedom of religion, whathaveyou, will be up on the chopping block eventually, and it's rather hard to say it was okay to kill this part of the Constitution, but it's not okay to kill that part.

But we already saw one part repealed, the precedent is there.

And the thing is, I can say it's not okay to kill this other part for the reasons I support this other part. I would not defend it on the merit of "It's part of the Constitution". For the 13th I'd say "I am against this because [insert argument against slavery]" not "I am against this because it is the 13th amendment". An amenmdent isn't right just because it is an amendment.

But there are equal arguments for and against anything.
Everything is debatable. By removing one section of the founding laws of this country, you open up debate on all of them. By and large, the original Amendments, the Bill of Rights, are often viewed as sacrosanct, whereas the dozens of later ones are more mutable. By removing one of the original founding principals of the nation you open up the veritable Pandora's Box on all other inherent rights.
Saying slavery is wrong is not really an argument. I can easily turn it against you by saying that your opinion is not absolute truth and by wanting to take choice away from people, you are violating their civil liberties and forcing a dictatorship upon a nation built of freedoms!
Now, obviously, that's complete crap, but it can be compelling, and that's the real danger.
By removing such a profoundly supported Amendment, you shake faith in all law and the concrete nature of life in this society and thus you invite the dangers of conflicting opinions onto the most tenuous stage in our legal system.

I see no evidence there are equal arguments for and against anything.

The thing is, they are already open to debate. I see no Pandora's Box being opened because waht you fear already exists in the 21st amendment, the ability to repeal another amendment.

I didn't say 'slavery is wrong' though, I just didn't want to come up with an argument for it. Furthermore, you haven't turned it against me, you just went on and made some absurd counterclaim. It also is irrelevant to the second's status.

But I see no evidence that it will shake faith in all law. It is already possible for people to be against an amendment. People are not all so stupid they worship the Constitution. If it were so it would never be amended in the first place.

Ahh, but again, the 2nd Amendment is one of the Bill of Rights, whereas the 18th and 21st are later, more mutable, Amendments the nation was not founded on.
By going after one of the original ten, you're undercutting the founding of the nation in the public's eyes. People might not worship, per se, the Constitution, but they are stupid. Never doubt that and never underestimate the danger of a large group of stupid people.
As for my absurd counterclaim, well... have you ever seen Thank You For Smoking?

The problem is that now you are trying to speak for the public without ample evidence. I see no reason to think that they will be anymore upset over that because it is one of the original ones instead of just because it is one they wholeheartedly support and they just use the fact it is one of the Bill of Rights as extra ammo for this.

I said not so stupid. Whether they are stupid as a whole, I'm not going to say yes or no.

And I have no headphones atm.

[AsuraSyn]

The Herald of War

AsuraSyn

Ahh, but again, the 2nd Amendment is one of the Bill of Rights, whereas the 18th and 21st are later, more mutable, Amendments the nation was not founded on.
By going after one of the original ten, you're undercutting the founding of the nation in the public's eyes. People might not worship, per se, the Constitution, but they are stupid. Never doubt that and never underestimate the danger of a large group of stupid people.
As for my absurd counterclaim, well... have you ever seen Thank You For Smoking?

The problem is that now you are trying to speak for the public without ample evidence. I see no reason to think that they will be anymore upset over that because it is one of the original ones instead of just because it is one they wholeheartedly support and they just use the fact it is one of the Bill of Rights as extra ammo for this.

I said not so stupid. Whether they are stupid as a whole, I'm not going to say yes or no.

And I have no headphones atm.

The fact that people have been using these arguments on every news channel since this little rash of shooting started kinda gives me the okay to reiterate it.
The bald truth is it simply doesn't matter. A total gun ban passing won't change s**t except some old folks will end up getting arrested, otherwise people will just hide their guns more. The Bill of Rights is no more or less mutable than the rest of the Constitution, yet people cling to the notion that it is. This false security is what's being threatened by the talk of repealing the 2nd, not the actual gun ownership. People get crazy when their illusions are torn away and that's, ironically, why it's not going to pass.