My Concessions to Ammend or Repeal the Second

B00ger

Well-Known Member
Charter Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2016
Messages
11,405
Location
NC
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Something I have been pondering on as of late...

I do believe that our founding fathers set the constitution up in such a way that it could be changed over time to fit the ebbs and flows of an ever changing society. Otherwise, the amendment process wouldn't even exist. They did, however, make it so that changing or removing something from the Constitution could not be done at the whim of the majority in order to infringe on the freedoms of others. In short, I feel the constitution was set up with frame work of freedom and liberty along with the capacity to grow and mutate over generations.

In my mind, this means that the founding fathers truly did have in their minds the possibility that over time peoples beliefs, needs, values, and desires may or may not change or evolve, and with that their government should as well. So, in a way, I see nothing specifically incorrect with people who want to change the constitution or amend it to fit a changed society.

HOWEVER: I want proof that society has changed. Convince me that we are a kinder, gentler people who no longer need an individual right to own firearms.

To do this the opposition must:

1. Stop referring to Trump/Republicans as Nazis, dictators, tyrants, evil, and destructors of the free world. Because these things are specifically enumerated as the reason we have firearms in the first place...to defend us from these things. You >cannot< claim that tyranny doesn't exist, and in the next breath call the leader of the free world a tyrant.

2. Next, I want to see the rate of suicides amongst children due to bullying decline significantly. As of now, internet and social media bullying has significantly increased. It isn't a sign of a kinder and gentler generation that is now experiencing 4,400 bullying related deaths per year, with far more suicide attempts that fail. It is not a sign of a kinder and gentler society that leads an estimated 160,000 kids to stay home from school each day due to fear of bullies. According to ABC, nearly 30 % of all students are either bullies, or victims of bullying. With numbers like this, I am actually impressed that fewer kids snap each day and go on a rampage. So dont claim to be "kinder and gentler" when you are literally killing each other through physical and emotional abuse on a daily basis.

3. Next, we can admit that abortion is killing babies. Enough of the "its just a clump of cells" garbage. If you will prosecute someone for double murder for killing a pregnant woman, but in the next breath claim that the child isnt really a "person" if the mom makes the choice then you are being intellectually dishonest. Then, explain how voluntarily murdering thousands of kids per year is somehow morally superior to allowing people to choose their own self defense method. You have to convince me that a much "loved" organization that has killed 8,000,000 children since 1970 is somehow a sign of a kinder, gentler society.

4. You then will need to explain why (if we are so morally and ethically superior to people 240 years ago that we no longer need firearms) the cities in this nation with some of the strictest gun control laws experience some of the highest rates of crime. You have to explain to me that when violent crime is so easily mapped to specific areas, that I who do not live in those areas, or contribute to the violence in them, am somehow responsible and should lose access to my belongings due to it.

5. You will then need to explain to em how, if we are so morally and ethically superior than our forefathers that we no longer need firearms why the depiction of violence is so popular in our media and musical industries. If we have evolved away from the evils of violence, then why do our top grossing movies revolve around war, murder, horror, abuse, and firearms? Why do many of our most popular songs center around drug use, violence, abusing women, and killing others? Why are so many top TV shows about crime, crime scene investigation, the mafia, gangsters, gangs, and other deviants?

Continued:
 
6. You will then need to prove to me that our own government will not ever turn on its own citizenry for "our own good". If one spends even a brief amount of time one would easily realize that there has yet to ever be a government that 1. Didn't turn on at least a portion of its population in some way, or 2. allowed its citizens to become so defenseless that it was conquered by another more aggressive government/people. If you can make an argument that the American experiment is so exceedingly successful that I, nor my children, nor any progeny that may follow will ever be in a situation that their government doesn't overstep its bounds then I may be able to listen. But be careful, this goes hand in hand with #1.

7. Then, you will need to explain to me why, if we are such a kind and evolved society, do the social elites of both parties demand armed security? If we have truly evolved as a people that the right to self defense is unnecessary then why invite the police to protect your rallies? Why hire private security for your celebrities? Why rely on the possible sacrifice of a policeman's life to protect you, if you don't feel there are actual threats?

8. Then, I need you to explain to me how I become so de-clawed that I am perfectly willing to totally rely on a police presence to protect me and my family. I want to know what it takes to emasculate myself to no longer take personal responsibility to the life and wellbeing of my loved ones. How do I lower myself to look my wife and kids in the eyes and tell them "I will not do anything and everything to protect you, and I will use any and all means at my disposal to do so."

9. I then need you to fully articulate that if we are such a peaceful and evolved society why are domestic violence issues still even worth mentioning? We lost 6,500 troops to war during the years of 2001 and 2012. We lost almost 12,000 women to domestic violence. So nearly twice as many women died at the hand of an abusive husband or boyfriend as troops who were killed specifically going into a war zone. Yet, we are now supposed to tell women all over the country that we are so kind and peaceful that they no longer need tools at their disposal to defend themselves. Explain to me how a 120 pound woman is going to defend herself from a 200 pound man who is hell bent on causing her harm. I want you to then explain to me how you, who will not be there with her during this life or death struggle, will dictate by which means she defends her life. I want to specifically know how it benefits her that she dies strangled in a pool of blood and vomit with an empty 6 shooter beside her while her wounded boyfriend stumbles out the door and perhaps succumbs to her defense hours or days later.

10. I then need you to explain to me that if we have come to respect life and peace so much that we continue to die en masse while texting one another while flying 70 miles per hour down the highway in massive metal projectiles. It is estimated that 8 people are killed and over 1,000 are injured >per day< due to distracted driving. But where is the outcry? Where are the "put it down and drive" marches? Explain to me that if life is so precious (see #3) we aren't in an uproar over this daily vehicular slaughter.

11. I will then need you to explain to me why medical errors, which have caused an estimated 58,000 deaths in the US in 2018 >SO FAR< is somehow less of an issue than the 2,700 people who have been murdered by a firearm this year. I want to know, specifically, what controls are being put into place to protect those of us who are at our weakest, and most vulnerable from the errors and mistakes of those we lean on so dearly for our recovery. I want to know why a medical doctor, whose profession accidentally kills tens of thousands of people per year, is seen as an esteemed member of society, yet a gun owner who has yet to kill anyone is seen as a potential mass murderer and a danger to society.

12. I will then need you to explain to me why I should feel safe when I have seen at least a dozen specific examples in the last week alone where people have expressed at least a surface level willingness to kill me because of something that I own. Why should I trust our society as "peaceful" when I have seen potential sheriffs claim that killing those who resist confiscation is perfectly acceptable. Billboards that advertise a desire to kill those in the NRA. And a group of people perfectly willing to "pry them from my cold dead hands".

13. Along with #12, I will need to be convinced that the rhetoric of the opposition to "disarm by any means necessary" is somehow morally superior to "I will defend myself by any means necessary". One is aggressive, the other defensive.

14. I then will need the opposition to prove to me that they are willing to do anything necessary to defend my children should I send them to one of their public schools. I want to know, specifically, why it is perfectly acceptable to guard a bank with a firearm. Why it is perfectly acceptable to guard a government building with armed guards. Why it is absolutely acceptable to surround politicians and their families with trained and armed men. Yet, when it comes to my children going to a school it should be completely "gun free". What makes my children so expendable that you would rather protect them with a sign than with action? Why is it so taboo to protect my children with the exact same level of aggressiveness as we protect wildlife? Even deer have armed game wardens policing the countryside ready and willing to lay down their lives to stop poachers and other criminals.

15. And finally, I will need the opposition to show me that in 240 years we have gone from a society of men and women who are too insecure in their position on the world stage that every man must be ready and equipped to defend the homeland from foreign invasion to a country that has such minimal threats of outside harm and interference that we no longer need a nation of "minutemen". This will require the following: 1. Acceptance that Russia (or any foreign body) had no influence on our elections. 2. The TSA has had a pristine record of preventing terror attacks on US soil since its inception. 3. The police, who are much aligned as being racist, untrained, and trigger happy, are now perfectly capable of protecting us completely from domestic threats. 4. Our military and its commanders will somehow be barred from ever carrying out missions on US citizens despite those citizens having completely lost any ability to resist.

Once all of these questions have been answered, and a sufficient burden of proof that we have, in fact, evolved from a bunch of pioneer era wild men to a new race of morally, ethically, and peaceable humans will I support a vote to appear or amend the second amendment. If it can be proven that we, in fact, have evolved then I see no issue with our form and framework of government evolving with us.

In the mean time, I will hold fast to my current limited abilities to defend myself and my family from all enemies, both foreign and domestic.
 
An outstanding read Mr B00ger. Very well thought out.
 
I read every word. You need to stop with all that common sense. You know that gets you nowhere today. we all need to copy that and send it to every anti we know. With Rev. Boogers blessing of course
 
Look what happened when they passed the 18th Amendment.
 
6. You will then need to prove to me that our own government will not ever turn on its own citizenry for "our own good". If one spends even a brief amount of time one would easily realize that there has yet to ever be a government that 1. Didn't turn on at least a portion of its population in some way, or 2. allowed its citizens to become so defenseless that it was conquered by another more aggressive government/people. If you can make an argument that the American experiment is so exceedingly successful that I, nor my children, nor any progeny that may follow will ever be in a situation that their government doesn't overstep its bounds then I may be able to listen. But be careful, this goes hand in hand with #1.

7. Then, you will need to explain to me why, if we are such a kind and evolved society, do the social elites of both parties demand armed security? If we have truly evolved as a people that the right to self defense is unnecessary then why invite the police to protect your rallies? Why hire private security for your celebrities? Why rely on the possible sacrifice of a policeman's life to protect you, if you don't feel there are actual threats?

8. Then, I need you to explain to me how I become so de-clawed that I am perfectly willing to totally rely on a police presence to protect me and my family. I want to know what it takes to emasculate myself to no longer take personal responsibility to the life and wellbeing of my loved ones. How do I lower myself to look my wife and kids in the eyes and tell them "I will not do anything and everything to protect you, and I will use any and all means at my disposal to do so."

9. I then need you to fully articulate that if we are such a peaceful and evolved society why are domestic violence issues still even worth mentioning? We lost 6,500 troops to war during the years of 2001 and 2012. We lost almost 12,000 women to domestic violence. So nearly twice as many women died at the hand of an abusive husband or boyfriend as troops who were killed specifically going into a war zone. Yet, we are now supposed to tell women all over the country that we are so kind and peaceful that they no longer need tools at their disposal to defend themselves. Explain to me how a 120 pound woman is going to defend herself from a 200 pound man who is hell bent on causing her harm. I want you to then explain to me how you, who will not be there with her during this life or death struggle, will dictate by which means she defends her life. I want to specifically know how it benefits her that she dies strangled in a pool of blood and vomit with an empty 6 shooter beside her while her wounded boyfriend stumbles out the door and perhaps succumbs to her defense hours or days later.

10. I then need you to explain to me that if we have come to respect life and peace so much that we continue to die en masse while texting one another while flying 70 miles per hour down the highway in massive metal projectiles. It is estimated that 8 people are killed and over 1,000 are injured >per day< due to distracted driving. But where is the outcry? Where are the "put it down and drive" marches? Explain to me that if life is so precious (see #3) we aren't in an uproar over this daily vehicular slaughter.

11. I will then need you to explain to me why medical errors, which have caused an estimated 58,000 deaths in the US in 2018 >SO FAR< is somehow less of an issue than the 2,700 people who have been murdered by a firearm this year. I want to know, specifically, what controls are being put into place to protect those of us who are at our weakest, and most vulnerable from the errors and mistakes of those we lean on so dearly for our recovery. I want to know why a medical doctor, whose profession accidentally kills tens of thousands of people per year, is seen as an esteemed member of society, yet a gun owner who has yet to kill anyone is seen as a potential mass murderer and a danger to society.

12. I will then need you to explain to me why I should feel safe when I have seen at least a dozen specific examples in the last week alone where people have expressed at least a surface level willingness to kill me because of something that I own. Why should I trust our society as "peaceful" when I have seen potential sheriffs claim that killing those who resist confiscation is perfectly acceptable. Billboards that advertise a desire to kill those in the NRA. And a group of people perfectly willing to "pry them from my cold dead hands".

13. Along with #12, I will need to be convinced that the rhetoric of the opposition to "disarm by any means necessary" is somehow morally superior to "I will defend myself by any means necessary". One is aggressive, the other defensive.

14. I then will need the opposition to prove to me that they are willing to do anything necessary to defend my children should I send them to one of their public schools. I want to know, specifically, why it is perfectly acceptable to guard a bank with a firearm. Why it is perfectly acceptable to guard a government building with armed guards. Why it is absolutely acceptable to surround politicians and their families with trained and armed men. Yet, when it comes to my children going to a school it should be completely "gun free". What makes my children so expendable that you would rather protect them with a sign than with action? Why is it so taboo to protect my children with the exact same level of aggressiveness as we protect wildlife? Even deer have armed game wardens policing the countryside ready and willing to lay down their lives to stop poachers and other criminals.

15. And finally, I will need the opposition to show me that in 240 years we have gone from a society of men and women who are too insecure in their position on the world stage that every man must be ready and equipped to defend the homeland from foreign invasion to a country that has such minimal threats of outside harm and interference that we no longer need a nation of "minutemen". This will require the following: 1. Acceptance that Russia (or any foreign body) had no influence on our elections. 2. The TSA has had a pristine record of preventing terror attacks on US soil since its inception. 3. The police, who are much aligned as being racist, untrained, and trigger happy, are now perfectly capable of protecting us completely from domestic threats. 4. Our military and its commanders will somehow be barred from ever carrying out missions on US citizens despite those citizens having completely lost any ability to resist.

Once all of these questions have been answered, and a sufficient burden of proof that we have, in fact, evolved from a bunch of pioneer era wild men to a new race of morally, ethically, and peaceable humans will I support a vote to appear or amend the second amendment. If it can be proven that we, in fact, have evolved then I see no issue with our form and framework of government evolving with us.

In the mean time, I will hold fast to my current limited abilities to defend myself and my family from all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

I see you have been influenced by @tanstaafl72555.
 
I see you have been influenced by @tanstaafl72555.

giphy.gif




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The only change I would like would be to add language that would make it very very clear to those who do not understand what "shall not infringe" means.
 
Well written,
 
6. You will then need to prove to me that our own government will not ever turn on its own citizenry for "our own good". If one spends even a brief amount of time one would easily realize that there has yet to ever be a government that 1. Didn't turn on at least a portion of its population in some way, or 2. allowed its citizens to become so defenseless that it was conquered by another more aggressive government/people. If you can make an argument that the American experiment is so exceedingly successful that I, nor my children, nor any progeny that may follow will ever be in a situation that their government doesn't overstep its bounds then I may be able to listen. But be careful, this goes hand in hand with #1.

7. Then, you will need to explain to me why, if we are such a kind and evolved society, do the social elites of both parties demand armed security? If we have truly evolved as a people that the right to self defense is unnecessary then why invite the police to protect your rallies? Why hire private security for your celebrities? Why rely on the possible sacrifice of a policeman's life to protect you, if you don't feel there are actual threats?

8. Then, I need you to explain to me how I become so de-clawed that I am perfectly willing to totally rely on a police presence to protect me and my family. I want to know what it takes to emasculate myself to no longer take personal responsibility to the life and wellbeing of my loved ones. How do I lower myself to look my wife and kids in the eyes and tell them "I will not do anything and everything to protect you, and I will use any and all means at my disposal to do so."

9. I then need you to fully articulate that if we are such a peaceful and evolved society why are domestic violence issues still even worth mentioning? We lost 6,500 troops to war during the years of 2001 and 2012. We lost almost 12,000 women to domestic violence. So nearly twice as many women died at the hand of an abusive husband or boyfriend as troops who were killed specifically going into a war zone. Yet, we are now supposed to tell women all over the country that we are so kind and peaceful that they no longer need tools at their disposal to defend themselves. Explain to me how a 120 pound woman is going to defend herself from a 200 pound man who is hell bent on causing her harm. I want you to then explain to me how you, who will not be there with her during this life or death struggle, will dictate by which means she defends her life. I want to specifically know how it benefits her that she dies strangled in a pool of blood and vomit with an empty 6 shooter beside her while her wounded boyfriend stumbles out the door and perhaps succumbs to her defense hours or days later.

10. I then need you to explain to me that if we have come to respect life and peace so much that we continue to die en masse while texting one another while flying 70 miles per hour down the highway in massive metal projectiles. It is estimated that 8 people are killed and over 1,000 are injured >per day< due to distracted driving. But where is the outcry? Where are the "put it down and drive" marches? Explain to me that if life is so precious (see #3) we aren't in an uproar over this daily vehicular slaughter.

11. I will then need you to explain to me why medical errors, which have caused an estimated 58,000 deaths in the US in 2018 >SO FAR< is somehow less of an issue than the 2,700 people who have been murdered by a firearm this year. I want to know, specifically, what controls are being put into place to protect those of us who are at our weakest, and most vulnerable from the errors and mistakes of those we lean on so dearly for our recovery. I want to know why a medical doctor, whose profession accidentally kills tens of thousands of people per year, is seen as an esteemed member of society, yet a gun owner who has yet to kill anyone is seen as a potential mass murderer and a danger to society.

12. I will then need you to explain to me why I should feel safe when I have seen at least a dozen specific examples in the last week alone where people have expressed at least a surface level willingness to kill me because of something that I own. Why should I trust our society as "peaceful" when I have seen potential sheriffs claim that killing those who resist confiscation is perfectly acceptable. Billboards that advertise a desire to kill those in the NRA. And a group of people perfectly willing to "pry them from my cold dead hands".

13. Along with #12, I will need to be convinced that the rhetoric of the opposition to "disarm by any means necessary" is somehow morally superior to "I will defend myself by any means necessary". One is aggressive, the other defensive.

14. I then will need the opposition to prove to me that they are willing to do anything necessary to defend my children should I send them to one of their public schools. I want to know, specifically, why it is perfectly acceptable to guard a bank with a firearm. Why it is perfectly acceptable to guard a government building with armed guards. Why it is absolutely acceptable to surround politicians and their families with trained and armed men. Yet, when it comes to my children going to a school it should be completely "gun free". What makes my children so expendable that you would rather protect them with a sign than with action? Why is it so taboo to protect my children with the exact same level of aggressiveness as we protect wildlife? Even deer have armed game wardens policing the countryside ready and willing to lay down their lives to stop poachers and other criminals.

15. And finally, I will need the opposition to show me that in 240 years we have gone from a society of men and women who are too insecure in their position on the world stage that every man must be ready and equipped to defend the homeland from foreign invasion to a country that has such minimal threats of outside harm and interference that we no longer need a nation of "minutemen". This will require the following: 1. Acceptance that Russia (or any foreign body) had no influence on our elections. 2. The TSA has had a pristine record of preventing terror attacks on US soil since its inception. 3. The police, who are much aligned as being racist, untrained, and trigger happy, are now perfectly capable of protecting us completely from domestic threats. 4. Our military and its commanders will somehow be barred from ever carrying out missions on US citizens despite those citizens having completely lost any ability to resist.

Once all of these questions have been answered, and a sufficient burden of proof that we have, in fact, evolved from a bunch of pioneer era wild men to a new race of morally, ethically, and peaceable humans will I support a vote to appear or amend the second amendment. If it can be proven that we, in fact, have evolved then I see no issue with our form and framework of government evolving with us.

In the mean time, I will hold fast to my current limited abilities to defend myself and my family from all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

We have our differences. This ain't one of them.
 
The modleft does not believe at all in the rule of law, but rather in a "democracy" which means... crap, I have no idea what it means. Rigged elections to reflect their superior wisdom I suppose. At the bottom, it is rule of force. These people cannot be reasoned with. I am serious. They must be fundamentally transformed in their ideas for the basis for life and law (I am talking about a society wide change in basic beliefs), or we are going to see a dissolution of the USA. IMO, we have already had it. It is just that the spit and baling wire holding it together has not had a good shaking to reveal the fissures. When that comes (earthquake in CA?, EMP event? weather disaster(s)? bioengineered or "natural" plague or disease? military disaster? currency collapse?..... you pick it), we will break up into sub states. The only thing that holds a "nation" (the greek word in the New Testament is in fact "tribe") together is a common culture. This USED to be Reformed Protestantism, out of which everything grew, including our right to protect ourselves. This common culture is dead as a dodo bird. Reminds me of a rotted paper mache image, just waiting for a slight poke to collapse. My opinion is that it will largely be us who have to sweep up the pieces and assemble something in replacement. Am I going to surrender my rights to defend myself in the teeth of something like this? Hell no. YMMV.
 
Booger, what you wrote is impressive and highlights the hypocrisy of the left very well. If you don't mind, I'd like to copy it to my Facebook page.

With that said, I would like to point out that the 1st and 2nd ammendment only serve to stop the government from denying us our inherent God given rights.
They may remove or nullify the amendments but they cannot remove our rights as humans.
 
Last edited:
Booger, what you wrote is impressive and highlights the hypocrisy of the left very well. If you don't mind, I'd like to copy it to my Facebook page.

With that said, I would like to point out that the 1st and 2nd ammendment only serve to stop the government from denying us our inherent God given rights.
They may remove or nullify the amendments bit they cannot remove our rights as humans.

I don’t mind


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Tyranny will always exist, so we’ll always need the right to bear arms. The right of free people to defend themselves is a natural right (God Given).

Good post @B00ger
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom