“Ideas have a ‘time’ and with changing times and changing understanding, even documents like the Constitution need to be amended to reflect the needs of the time. When the constitution was written, survival on the frontier depended on the ability to hunt and defend from harm and guns were important to that basic survival. We no longer live in this kind of environment and so the time has come to change the rules. Just as the time had not come for women to vote, and black Americans were slaves, changing times call for changing laws.” – Girl Rising founder Holly Gordon in Guns: Changing Times Call for Changing Laws [via huffingtonpost.com]
Oh look… yet another old, shrievled up, childless feminazi is running her mouth. It’s amazing, I didn’t know you could smell cat urine through the internet.
Sometimes I’m very glad I’m not an early adopter.
https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/new-peripheral-to-allow-you-to-smell-your-games.138901/
That’s a chick?
Not sure. I’m going to let Rangers lead the way on this one. You find out and call in. If you get stuck, I’ll be by with the weedwacker to get you out.
She’s the reason they turn the lights on 10 minutes before last call.
OUTSTANDING!
There is rather a Bruce Jenner look to “her” isn’t there?
That’s exactly what I thought when I first saw her picture, I mean “its” picture. You know “woman” of the year. Haha. Hilarious
She talked about her family. And what if she’s childless? Increase two different words that sound the same much?
Her “family” probably consist of a drawer full of dildos and a herd of cats.
Nice representation of the God-fearing gun community here. If this is the public face of American firearm owners, then there’s an uphill battle ahead with diminishing support. Reap what you sow gentleman. Reap what you sow.
I miss my gun rights already (:-(
Don’t forget the Great Dane that she dry humps as she cries herself to sleep after eating a pint of two of Ben and Jerries cookie dough and brownie batter.
Charlie Mike Mike, did you just assume Serge’s gender? Talk about losing the PR war.
@Charlie Mike Mike, go scold your children if you have any. If not, go make some.
Serge has made his gender known many times in his posts. But thanks for trying. It shows you care.
Charlie, why must you assume that we’re all “God fearing…”? Or are you saying that to be a member of the gun community one must be God fearing?
Neither one real inclusive. Big tent brah, big tent.
I sexually identify as an AAVP7A1. So check your biped privilege.
I sexually identify as an AAVP7A1. Next year I’m going to have a doctor install armored panels and a mk19 grenade launcher. Some people tell me that it’s ludicrous for a grown man to want to be an amphibious assault vehicle. But I dream of rolling on to beaches and raining hot loads on the heads of haji scum. So you need to check you biped privilege.
And that, that Serge, is why I just can’t stay mad at you.
I occasionally tell the PC tards I run into that I identify as an AH-64 Apache and that I demand the University install landing pads with fuel and hire maintenance crews to service, refuel and rearm me.
That usually shuts them up. However on the rare occasions when one asks why I choose to identify that way I tell them it’s Hellfires and Hydras for the safe spaces and the 30mm for any survivors that try to flee. That always shuts them up. Gets me some weird looks, but they and their friends usually leave me alone after such a conversation.
Meow
Is the smell from the cats, or the meth lab?
Silly question. “Intersectional” (read: Marxist) “feminists” don’t cook meth. That would require hard work and a basic knowledge of chemistry. (Which we all know is a tool of the patriarchy to keep women down.)
It’s the “cooking” part that irks them…
Yeah. But that’s ok. My kitchen needs a feminist like it needs a bucket of sarin.
You’re not keeping up with the methhead “tech” The newish one pot/shake n bake is pretty much the microwave solution for the problems of a feminist.
Aren’t you assuming her gender?
She founded “Girl Rising”. I’d take that as a public declaration of gender identity but YMMV.
Someone born with male appendages, with hormone therapy but pre-op, could on (special) occasion(s) be referred to as “girl rising”.
Cliff, I’m not sure if I should be awed or horrified by the amount of thought you put into that.
Of course, we all know the socialists indoctrinated idiots know what’s best for all Americans.
Okay.
In fact let’s do a retake on the entire Bill of Rights, starting at the top with freedom of the press, speech, and religion.
No?
My feelings exactly. Since we no longer need the 2nd we should revamp the first. After all there was no television, radio, internet etc., so by her reasoning the 1st needs a major overhaul.
Why stop there, lets just get rid of the whole document and start from scratch.
I fear for this country because these ideas are coming out of our places of “Higher Learning” not just from some nut job.
WIth all the damage caused by social media why haven’t we changed the first amendment? Young kids are committing suicide, attacking each other because of comments made through the anonymity of the internet. And this isn’t the first time someone has been virtually beaten or killed on Facebook live, we must stop the violence caused by the first amendment!
Maybe it’s time we require everyone to apply for permit to voice their opinions online or in the news. Mentally unstable and dangerous people should not be allowed to damage our children’s self worth.
And furthermore religion is very dangerous nowadays killing children all the time and more people are turning away from religion so maybe there isn’t a need for it anymore?
Of course this is all sarcasm but the arguments the left and media use against gun ownership apply directly to every other constitutionally guaranteed freedom. It’s unfortunate that they don’t see the implications of the slippery slope they are promoting we run towards….
Don’t kid yourselves. The current state of the Left would be fine with doing just that. Have you read anything about what happening on college campuses? The next generation of policy makers ar busy trying to define free speech as only speech with doesn’t offend people.
Actually, many people in America today want to re-write the constitution from top to bottom. That pesky piece of paper has been very problematic for power hungry eleitists since it’s conception….
I doubt very seriously that this woman thinks anyone should be able to speak their mind. Or that anyone can choose to believe whatever they want.
Good Morning “No one of consequence” you’re finally waking up to what’s going on! While it doesn’t seem connected, all this crap is:
Colleges are using procedures that deny constitutional rights and due process to young men accused of undesired sexual, or perceived undesired sexual activity to impose punishments that will reverberate for a lifetime. Undesired sexual activity is very, very broadly defined, and the loosest standards are used to convict. This began at the direction of the Obama administration. Nobody wants to be against rape, so it’s easier to start inculcating college students with the idea that people accused of “criminal” or disapproved activity don’t need rights or due process. That’s the underlying purpose.
The outrage against hate speech is a similar attack against free speech. In the same vein, if you don’t remember Pelosi’s proposed constitutional amendment, which was claimed to take money out politics, actually gutted First Amendment rights to free speech.
You’re well aware of attacks on the Second Amendment.
The courts have pretty much adjudicated away our property rights, property can be taken by government and given to other private companies, or on mere suspicion, without a warrant, and without even pressing charges, much less a conviction, everything you have can be confiscated under Federal drug laws. Simply confiscated, when you can clearly demonstrate you’ve broken no law.
That’s a pretty broad front on which our constitutional rights are being eradicated. It is consistently being promoted by “progressives” and people who turn out to be outright socialists. You can’t have people standing up to the next five-year plan, after all.
It’s not a vast conspiracy, it’s a loose network of people, but a network of people who think they’re smarter than everyone else (like Hillary Clinton does) and who have enough money to fund supporters of their nasty socialist ideas.
Huff Po gets it wrong again. Still batting 1,000!
Knock yourself out, lady. The Constitution lays out explicitly the method to be used for making amendments.
Get on after it, and see how that goes for you.
Yep.
All she needs to do is get an amendment passed by each house of congress by a two-thirds majority and then get it passed by three-fourths of the states.
Seems simple enough.
^
Though, the leftists are playing a longer game here.
Perhaps she should try for secession. It might be easier.
It would be a lot easier to pack their stuff and move to one of the other previous started socialists paradises
Was disappointed that the first comment block went for the ad hominem attack, rather than address the underlying issue. If I were to have relied on looks, I’d have stayed away from the overweight and pasty party that makes up the all too much of gun-owning America.
The truth is, your comment is spot on. I’d rather have Shannon and friends working at repealing or amending the 2A – at least they would be changing the governing text instead of driving by feeling. I’d still disagree with their efforts, but I could respect them.
Disappointed, yes, but surely not surprised, right? The quality of the comments on TTAG has taken a big drop in the past year. I think the election drew all the creeps out of their hiding places, and now they’ve infested places like this. It’s probably time RF and the gang retired the use of the term “Armed Intelligentsia” to describe the crowd around here.
She wants to abolish the second Amendment. She even played the slavery card. There isn’t much to say about that but come fucking take them!
Nothing is out of bounds when dealing with those that strive to dismantle the Republic.
Well, there’s always the option of dismantling her idiotic argument, instead of just making nasty remarks that don’t advance our cause at all. Sure, it’s more fun to act like a shitheel, but perpetuating negative stereotypes about gun owners doesn’t help us.
Dismantling her argument is about as much fun or challenging as completing a two piece jigsaw puzzle.
This guy is an idiot. Also, some people in this country still do rely on hunting for survival. We all still need to “defend from harm”.
“This guy . . .” ? Uh, “he’s a she, sir.” =)
The derp is strong with this one.
Okay, fair enough. If you want to amend the Constitution, which is what she is saying, fine. There is vehicle already in place to amend this document; after all, the Constitution has been amended a number of times. So please, by all means, have at it. The reason the anti’s don’t go this route is because they know how difficult is to mount a campaign for a Constitutional amendment particularly as there are 60 to 90 million gun owners in the country.
Yes, she fails to understand that the Bill of Rights does not grant those rights, it acknowledges that they are pre-existing and the government cannot take them away.
Bingo. The Bill of Rights generally is used only to increases existing rights or clarify them. The big exception was prohibition which was enacted deceitfully, totally failed and was reversed a few years later. I do applaud her for recognizing that since the 2A exist that this is the only real tool to change that. The requirement for 2/3 ratification by the states makes it moot, but still the idea is valid. That sets a high bar and is why even some like the women’s equal rights which as some merit has not been able to raise support needed.
Women don’t need any special “rights” granted by the constitution. All human beings have the SAME rights as everyone else, naturally and without any need for permission from anyone or any document. What a shame that so many people just can’t seem to understand or accept this.
There’s no such thing as “gun rights,” or special “rights” for homosexuals, etc. No special “rights” for different races, creeds or cultures. Everyone has a natural right to life, individual choice (liberty) and property obtained without force or fraud. Everyone has the “right” to defend themselves and others… or to allow themselves to be victims. Nobody can legitimately choose for anyone else.
That’s it.
This right here..
Ding, Ding, Ding. We have a winner!!!
Girl Rising should be called Moldering Hag if they want a truthful name.
Hmmm. Pretty sure the Second Amendment is for protection against government tyranny, not explicitly for defense against fangs and claws on the frontier. And tyranny never seems to go out of style.
Meanwhile, in Canadia, you have neither. You are not allowed to use handguns or scary rifles for defense against wild animals, and you must be vetted, registered, and tracked constantly to own any kind of firearm at all.
Nailed it. The 2nd Amendment is intended to enable us to fulfill the only DUTY mentioned in the Declaration of Independence (THE founding document of the United States): “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their DUTY, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
Hard to throw off a despot without guns. Don’t give me that shit about hunting.
The Declaration made up articles of secession from the U.K., but did not constitute the founding of the United States.
True. Also true is that there’s a big, bright arrow pointing straight from the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution. The Constitution is meant to fulfill those ideals and (we hope) make it unnecessary for a repeat of the revolution.
“IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America” … “We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.”
Sure sounds like a foundation statement to me.
Government Granny.
Yes, times have changed. We should amend the Constitution to remove women’s right to vote and send all the Blacks back to Africa.
Yes! I like that one… The welfare/nanny state began with suffrage. There was no national debt, except during wartime, until women got the vote. And, well, you can answer for yourself what black culture has contributed, other than jazz.
I’m not quite sure if this is sarcasm or you just said some of stupidest shit I’ve heard today.
Personally, I don’t think a world without jazz and blues (and therefore rock and metal) would be a fair trade, no matter what we got in return.
So this is what is truly fascinating to me, that these “living document” types believe the Constitution is a living, breathing document, and that it should change with the times. They believe that “Originalists” like Neil Gorsuch are evil and silly for believing ridiculous things like; the 9th and 10th Amendments weren’t written for the purposes of abortion, that the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to illegal aliens, and that the 2nd Amendment clearly only applies to single shot pellet guns owned via license from the federal government.
However, these hypocrites are THEMSELVES originalists, simply from a different period. Indeed, Sen. Diane Feinstein has even proudly proclaimed so, stating that rulings like “Roe v. Wade” were “super-precendents” that should never be challenged.
So, unlike Neil Gorsuch or the evil conservative racist that interpret the Constitution as it was written in the 1790s…Diane Feinstein is an Originalist interpreting the Constitution via the 1970s… And how funny is it then, that as the Democrats in this nation call for “reinterpreting” this great document as it suits them, that they will scream like devils when somebody suggests rehearing a SCOTUS case made on abortion before ultrasound, before fetal heart monitoring, before FDA pregnancy drug classifications even existed….but when it comes to something as clear cut as “shall not be infringed” they demand it be “reinterpreted into” “infringement is law.”
It’s almost like they read the Constitution and interpret it to mean what they want. Sort of like any other creed, manifesto, law, or holy book ever written.
The “living document” people actually think the opposite. (As usual with progs and leftists, the truth is the exact opposite of what they say.)
Living things stubbornly hold onto their own meaning and intentions. Dead things, on the other hand, don’t speak for themselves or hold any intrinsic meaning.
The Constitution always has been a living document, which sorely vexes these people. It even includes its own means of revision. But they can’t unilaterally rewrite it, so they call it dead, hoping that if enough people believe them, their desire will come true.
The Constitution may potentially be abandoned and lose political force, but as long as those words exist somewhere for people to read, it will never die. It’s alive, and can’t be killed.
Having just been a victim of burglary on 4/17 I find you are out of touch with reality. And working in the judicial system, seeing every single day of the week that there are people who pray on the weak and those who can’t defend themselves proves to me yet again just how delusional and out of touch you are with reality.
Well, this is what defines her as an Elitist.
She doesn’t need to hunt for food – she can afford overpriced groceries at upscale gourmet grocery stores.
She doesn’t need to defend herself against wild animals- rhinestone wearing Chihuahuas and shi-tzus aren’t that dangerous.
Armed bandits are simply not allowed in her gated, guarded, controlled-access subdivision.
And finally, she’s way too privileged and white to ever need to set foot in any “bad” neighborhood.
This is her life. It is why she doesn’t need a gun – ever. And neither would any of us if only we would accept that her way of doing things is superior to the everyday life we poorer folk call “reality”.
Well, changing the Constitution is the intellectually honest way to address the topic. I disagree with her, but she (unlike almost all of the other anti’s) is at least barking up the proper tree.
I”m against anyone touching the first 10 amendments regardless of who it is and how noble their intentions are. The founding father’s are the only ones with the right to touch said amendments and if they felt that they were good enough then we need to leave them as is. Just because some fucking snowflake doesn’t like how it’s worded or wants to gut the bill of rights does not mean that they have a right to. No one should have the right to amend the bill of rights.
Nobility has nothing to do with it.
Also this is from Huffington post. Say no more.
I have to agree with Ironhead. This is the propa-tainment channel that rushed to crow about a (intentionally false and sarcastic) blog post that called for baring males from voting for 20 years.
I’m tired of intentionally aggravating my ulcers, elevating my blood pressure, and moving rapidly toward a heart attack. If it’s from HuffPo, I usually avoid reading it.
So you don’t believe in the Constitution?
Agreed! I am sure to catch flak on this. Although I strongly disagree with any attempt to “unlawfully” strip away our 2nd Amendment Rights, they are partly a result of the constitution itself. To say that we cannot change those violates one of the basic principles of the constitution. That makes those of us who preach against the government taking away our rights no better than those on the “other side.” Bring on the debate and let the people choose, there will be no overturning of the 2nd Amendment!
Changing times call for Huffpoo to be ignored, and the people that write for it to be given a permanent watchful eye.
No, not really.
What the writers need is to be publicly mocked and humiliated.
People like this ‘intellectual’ need to be publicly mocked and humiliated.
They need a straight up Nelson kind of Ha-Ha!
They need to fear walking down the street because everyone points and laughs as they walk by.
I wanted to post on this, a towering spire of righteous indignation, a monumental harangue, and yet you magnificent peoples have made all the salient points already. Thus I can only add, should you really wish to, “clarify” the US Constitution, start at placing your head on the desk in front of you and striking it until you don’t feel pain anymore. THEN, you can get to work on trying to locate your brains.
Another closet fascist/commie/statist. These people hold no universal truths, everything is relative, including human life.
This will never happen without a solid fight and these people don’t stand a chance. If anything, we need to repeal the Hughes Amendment of 1986 and return our full auto rights. Pass so much pro-gun legislation these people will never realize another gun control bill even in the lifetime(s) of their grandchildren.
The Second had nothing to do with hunting.
*has. The reasons for the Second Amendment are the same now as they were 200 years ago. But yeah, otherwise spot on.
Today we need to be able to defend ourselves against the crooks and thugs the Democrats refuse to imprison, the crazed addicts and drug dealers the Democrats will not control, the murderous illegal aliens the Democrats have “welcomed” and harbored in our Country and the Islamic Terrorists, also facilitated by Democrat rule, who would gladly exterminate us for not Kow-towing to their iteration of a Deity. Many Americans DO in fact Hunt out of necessity to put protein on their Families’ Tables.
The right to keep and bear Arms is as unalienable to Humans as any other (except the manufactured “right” to murder Human Babies in the womb). Holly Gordon is just another closet Fascist spewing Leftist propaganda.
Let me get this right Holly Gordon, guns are used ‘sometimes’ by bad people to kill ‘innocent’ people so the constitution must change. But constitutionally allowed abortions that kill millions of ‘innocent’ unborn babies is okey-dokey! Simply because we can’t tell a woman what to do with her body. Then don’t tell me what to do with my ‘Arms’, I’ll be bearing them to fend off the crazies from the Holly Gordon camp.
The level of confidence in her own stupidity truly is astounding.
A real feminist doesn’t disarm.
When you eagerly oppress yourself your cries of oppression take a mocking tone insulting to all who truly are oppressed.
+1, for sure.
Everything our Framers of the Constitution said about guns had nothing about hunting. If you wish to try to amend the 2nd amendment go right ahead do not think you will succeed but you are welcome to try
My answer to “Repeal the 2nd” types is the same as it is for “End the Electoral College” people: When they can name all 38 states they believe will agree to ratify such an enormous and disadvantageous change to the U.S. Constitution just so New York and California are kept happy, then we can have a real debate. Until then, I’m happy to watch them wail and smack their heads in frustration, Rain Man style.
Get rid of the Second Amendment. You can trust today’s modern government not to cart citizens off to internment camps. Yeah. Right.
Shorter Holly Gordon: In the time of the founding, the British government sought to impose harsher and more oppressive rule on the American colonists. This led to the colonists’ desire for the Second Amendment. Times change though. No twentieth or twenty-first century government would be harsher and more oppressive on its peoples. So, we can abandon the Second.
Once again, Orwell says, “The totalitarian states can do great things, but there is one thing they cannot do, they cannot give the factory worker a rifle and tell him to take it home and keep it in his bedroom. That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer’s cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see it stays there.”
Good luck taking away the best means of defending herself from any of the women in my family.
Do people who claim to be feminists comprehend that violence against women would almost certainly increase if we removed guns from our country? Look at the rape and sexual assault rates in Europe, Sweden, and Great Britain. They are 4 to 6 times that of the US. Why is Holly Gordon pro-rape, and why would she be in any position to influence young women to share her victim mentality? Anti-gun=pro-rape.
Whenever a hag like that one opens her mouth to speak, I lament the 19th Amendment.
Perhaps Khizr Khan should loan her his pocket-sized copy of the U.S. Constitution.
I love how loads of modern intellectuals act like the arc of history somehow ended in their lifetime.
Instead of rewriting the 2nd, why don’t we rewrite the 4th so that the police can break down doors unannounced and confiscate illegal weapons from felons?
Cause we are all felons waiting to happen in the eyes of the State.
Geez ragging on her looks guys-most women look like dog shite without makeup. Except mine…
Mine too. So we snagged the only two in the world… What’re the odds?
🙂
Utter vomit!
Some people are just like Hitler. And that’s not just my opinion, it’s also Godwin’s Rule?
People gained rights that were already theirs.
Show me where anyone has lost Constitutionally stated rights…oh except through gun restrictions in different states and municipalities.
Slavery ended all over the world within 100 years except for it’s present black market forms. Women’s suffrage was granted. This was people changing their minds about who was entitled to these rights. In the colonies one couldn’t vote if he wasn’t a landowner. People opened their minds.
Maybe she et al should learn the real statistics and stop with the old tired excuses.
Obviously trucks and bombs can do more damage than guns.
She’s doesn’t care about inner city gun violence because she would be backing the Boston Miracle. Who is she worried about getting killed anyway? She cares if I commit suicide? Ban Tylenol?
You know what’s the most bothersome? Having my rights restricted because someone has bad information and is scared. Heard it before. “Can’t let women vote because they are emotional.” “No Irish Need Apply.” Uh huh.
“Slavery ended all over the world within 100 years except for it’s present black market forms.”
You’ve missed the latest news.
Slaves are NOW being traded OPENLY in Libya, not ‘black market’:
“West African migrants are being bought and sold openly in modern-day slave markets in Libya, survivors have told a UN agency helping them return home.
Trafficked people passing through Libya have previously reported violence, extortion and slave labour. But the new testimony from the International Organization for Migration suggests that the trade in human beings has become so normalised that people are being traded in public.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/10/libya-public-slave-auctions-un-migration
Why aren’t you bothering going all the way to Libya? Just head to any major US city and you’ll find human trafficking in growing proportions,
But trafficking was made illegal by the USG so how can this be true?
And it will only stop, Geoff… when people are able to defend themselves. Able and willing.
We’d all be better off if she spent her time making sammiches.
You wouldn’t like hers.
Tofu vegetarian crap with fat-free dressing when you would want a righteous grilled cheese steak with onions or a proper ham and cheese with mayo…
🙂
The Tofu sandwich might suck but the naturally-sourced, non-GMO, responsibly harvested paint chips on the side are to DIE for.
They really bring out the taste of the sprouts.
Sorry Holly Dolly…..but, Tyranny Governments HAVE NOT CHANGED…!!!
Although most of it is mindless drivel (keeping defensive firearms locked in a safe outside the house for instance) at least she touches on the aspect that children should be taught to respect human life which is at least part of the problem in Chiraq etc and most huff post articles do absolutely nothing of the sort
https://uncouthreflections.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/gofuckyourself.jpg
The imperfections in the Constitution gave way to universal suffrage, an expansion of freedom.
Now she wants to recast the Constitution’s prohibition against infringing firearms rights as an imperfection, the remedy for which is a contraction of freedom? How droll. Newspeak: the language that never dies.
In terms of unnatural causes of death, more people have been killed by governments, their own or someone else’s, than by any other entity or cause. The same evil that men did in the 18th century is still being done today, only worse for being done on an industrial scale with modern efficiency.
Don’t mistake a comforting evolution in some of our human institutions for a revolution in all of human nature. There are people im this world, in your city, in your workplace, perhaps even in your home, who, had they the chance, would walk up to someone and shoot them in the face for no reason or for their own self-styled reason.
When enough such people gain control of a government, you get statism and obliteration of freedom. That isn’t 19th century reminiscing. That’s 21st century reality. Only about 40% of the world’s population lives in freedom today. The rest live in partly free or unfree countries, divided more heavily toward unfree.
Culture goes a long way toward preserving freedom. A culture backed by firearms freedom goes a lot farther.
For the sake of the women in my life I don’t support it, but she does make a good case for repeal of the 19th Amendment. As in repeal the one to save the rest.
Of course Holly seems not to have followed all the anti-gun rulings of the lower Courts and often the Supreme Court which has consistently gutted the Second Amendment. The recent rulings against Assault Rifle ownership simply put the remaining nails in the Second Amendment. The majority of Americans today do not own firearms and the younger generation is obsessed with video games. Gun shows are only attended by old dying men part of the dead hand of the past. When they are gone Public Opinion will give the Courts the green light to finish off the Second Amendment altogether and it will die without a whimper.
“Gun shows are only attended by old dying men part of the dead hand of the past.”
Show up at a public gun range next Saturday.
You’ll see *lots* of youths who got their interest in guns from playing video games, now shooting the real thing.
The kids know that guns are *cool*…
“The majority of Americans today do not own firearms and the younger generation is obsessed with video games.”
The majority of Americans, pardon my French, are fucking ignorant retards. The number of them who can hold a reasonable conversation on political topics like taxes, or foreign policy is vanishingly small. As a percentage it’s far smaller than the number of people who own guns.
So, I guess the 1A will end up on the trash heap too, huh? Probably without a “whimper” too. I mean, we can’t let people have “dangerous” opinions and the right to voice them unfettered by “reasonable and common sense restrictions”, right?
By all means, if you want to amend the constitution to say the second amendment is null and void go for it. Just don’t be surprised when you can’t even get 1/5 of the states to agree to it.
Frankly, I’d love to see this vote. Would be nice to have all the antis on record for election season.
While I disagree with all of her assertions, I am glad she recognizes that the ONLY way to restrict or infringe upon firearm ownership is by changing the Constitution.
Too many states have decided to enact anti-gun laws that fly in the face of the supreme law of the land, and hopefully the Supreme Court can rectify those few exceptions over the next decade or so.
‘Just as the time had not come for women to vote, and black Americans were slaves…’
So – she thinks depriving women of representation and enslaving black folk was morally acceptable 200 years ago – so why not deprive everyone of the right to effective self defense today?
Human rights don’t change, only our will to uphold and fight for them. Violating those rights was wrong 200 years ago and it is wrong today.
Yes, times have changed.
Now we have terrorists in our country blowing themselves up, mass shootings and attacks by mentally disturbed / angry people, everyday crime, and all being enabled by moronic legislation, SJWs, the left media, and politicians at every turn.
I’ll keep my guns, thanks.
Given my experience of White, “liberal” anti-gunners, she probably wants to make some changes to the 13th Amendment too.
Make guns illegal and it wont be a big deal to be a felon anymore, big war coming, stock fat and deep.
Makes you wonder, do theses city folk have any idea how easy it would be to shut down their power grid?
The US has amended the constitution many times.
Harder for the “just fix it” folks to understand is, the political process to amend the constitution is hard, precisely to prevent one bunch of “citizens” from capturing the mechanisms of government, to inflict their preferences on everyone else, enrich themselves, or both.
Amending the constitution is not the easy escape clause for doing the right thing, when every other approach has failed.
That said, the process works as intended, allowing broadly acceptable solutions to broadly agreed problems, while blocking attempts at factional capture and infliction. The ERA didn’t go through, becoming the canonical example for the do-gooders that the process is flawed. Yet the 25th sailed through with nearly no notice … because there was a broadly agreed problem, and broadly acceptable solution.
“Time for a change” there can hope that the tide of anti-gun sentiment is both high enough, and broad enough for her preference to prevail. But, maybe not. Paraphrasing Lady Thatcher: First you win the argument, then you get to pass the law you want.
I do hope “time for a change” isn’t too disappointed. I recall that She Who Is Not President ran pretty strongly on No Guns for You in various forms, as did Gaggles of D-party Operatives No Longer in Office. In the last presidential the gunny people broke pretty hard for The Orange Crush.
“Time for a change” might infer from this that her argument is yet to be won, so amending the constitution isn’t just another, better mechanism to Get What She’s Already Decided is Right. (I’m with her!) I’m unclear from her printed sermon to the choir. Does she think they’ve won the debate? That she only needs to mobilize the folks who agree with her – they have the numbers? That there really isn’t any opposition? Maybe all three, and she needs to get out more?
I agree. When the Constitution was written, the citizens of the United States were charged-up fighters against tyranny, so the federal government, which had not yet begun to flex its muscles, would not overstep like the British government had. Now we are at a point where that is no longer the case. The federal government is intruding in personal and states’ rights to a degree never foreseen by the founders. We therefore need to change the Second Amendment to read: “The Right of the people to make, purchase, sell, own, keep, use, transport, and bear arms or arms-related equipment and/or supplies, shall not be infringed, by law or otherwise, by federal, state, local, or other government or agent thereof, nor shall any restriction, tax, or levy, or license requirement be placed on that right, except during periods of incarceration in a facility maintained for the purpose of housing persons who have presented a danger to society, during which time their safety shall be ensured by the incarcerating agency.” The right to self-defense by any means, against any aggressor, foreign or domestic, is a fundamental right of all living beings; it is not the province of government to restrict that right by constraining the means by which we choose to exercise that right. Times change, and we are subject to dangers from domestic and foreign terror, so the Second Amendment needs to be adapted to those changes.
“The Beauty Of The Second Amendment Is That It Will Not Be Needed Until THEY TRY TO TAKE IT.”
THOMAS JEFFERSON
Nice quote but there is no evidence that Jefferson ever said or wrote that.
https://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/beauty-second-amendmentspurious-quotation
There’s no credible evidence he didn’t neither.
LOL, yeah, I guess not. The first time this ever appeared in writing was 2007.
At least Holly Gordon has the wits to understand that this is a constitutional issue that requires a change of the constitution, and not merely an executive order.
Um, it’s going to take more than an amendment to rid guns. So not so much wit there at all.
As they might say in South Philadelphia, “good luck wid dat”.
If she thinks that firearms aren’t needed for survival, she’s never been to Chicago.
http://www.meoso.com/the-second-amendment-is-not-about-hunting/
Another case of someone who fails to recognize that there is far more than a single America, just as it was at the beginning of the country. We have cities, farmlands, forested regions, etc, and their needs are all different, therefore, there are many different reasons for having firearms today. Self defense everywhere. Protection of livestock and property everywhere. Hunting/subsistence still serves people in many regions.
People like this, Bloomberg, and the rest reside in, for the most part, in safe areas of cities, and try to make choices for people who live entirely different lives, just as people who know absolutely nothing about firearms are making decisions based upon bogus beliefs.
At least she’s honest enough to acknowledge that we’re talking about a right so fundamental that any changes would require a Constitutional amendment. Most of these commies would rather just ignore that. She’s still wrong, just not as wrong as most of her ilk.
This should be next: http://paulsilvis.net/A_Modest_Proposal.pdf
The Constitution is. pair of handcuffs on the government because human nature is corruptive. Times may have changed, but people haven’t, keep the cuffs on, they are already loose.
To all the people (such as the quoted author, in the full text of her article) who try to push the falsehood that the US has an “epidemic” of “gun violence”, I’m just going to leave this here:
https://www.graphiq.com/vlp/iQ4m130bvSd
As I’ve stated before, 2/3 of all homicides are gang-related. We don’t have a “gun violence” problem; we have a gang problem.
I didn’t know that the ideas of “freedom” and “self defense” had an expiration date. Is this news to anyone else?
Note that she used Australia as an example.
She might as well used apartheid-era South Africa as an example of how to deal with gun violence.
Then try to amend it, in this regard. Good luck.
Hunting again? No. The guns were for tyrants and tyrant governments.
And the fight for freedom (for women and African Americans) was just. Taking guns away from the populace and regulating them with strong arm government tactics or even any laws at all regarding guns – is the opposite of freedom. Women now have the freedom to vote, to own property, and are on equal footing with men. African american’s are on equal footing with the white man. And all of us get to own guns. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with the pursuit of freedom, but taking people’s guns away or otherwise regulating them, is the opposite of that.
People like this should be asked point-blank in public if they’ve read a newspaper or listened to a news broadcast in the last month. The follow-up question would be “From what source did you hear that violent crime has stopped, and humans no longer do anything to harm other humans?”
Man has always been the most dangerous predator. Until humans are no longer predators at all, we need the Second Amendment — and so does every other country.
The author makes the case using deliberately skewed logic, along with a disingenuous representation of the times the author insists are always changing. The Founders didn’t draft and include the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights because of hunting or Indian raids on the frontier. They considered an armed citizenry an essential defense against tyranny. Read any Jefferson or Madison quote on the subject.
To maintain its stranglehold on power, Maduro’s socialist government in Venezuela is breaking down doors and confiscating privately owned firearms while simultaneously arming a lawless rabble euphemistically called a ‘people’s militia’. They’re doing this right now, as I write. That’s tyranny, in case you were wondering. Tyranny still exists because some things–such as the authoritarian impulse that seems to be part of human nature–still exist.
Fortunately for us, the Founders put a mechanism in place by which the US Constitution may be revised. Perhaps you’ve heard of it. As a matter of fact, several amendments have been added since the Constitution’s adoption. While the amendment process may seem painstaking and laborious, it was intended to be so. Therefore, if you want to ban the private ownership of firearms, by all means go forward. Make the case. Win over the states you need to win over to make it happen.
No? Too much work? You don’t have the necessary support to pass such an amendment? That’s your problem. Your other problem is what will happen should you attempt to take away the 2nd Amendment by other than lawful means.
I agree, times have changed — and they call for even greater access to guns and the right to carry guns for average citizens. When the Constitution was written we’d just overthrown a tyranny and did not face the threat of a massive, malevolently intrusive and weaponized federal government. We also did not have violent urban hellholes with murder rates higher than Afghanistan. Nor did we have the threat of terrorism. Single mothers were virtually unknown and so too was their need to protect themselves. So, yes, by all means — let’s change the laws to make guns for solid citizens more easily available and firearm education a regular feature of the public schools.
+1…. The times today and the predators today are as dangerous as ever. They are just in different guises today. And yes, you are still the only one responsible to protect yourself. No one is coming to save you, not the police or the government. SCOTUS has rules several times the police have no duty to save or protect you. So yes we actually need to make firearms and the training of their use more available to all good citizens of all genders, creeds, colors, etc. that want the ability and knowledge.
Another ignorant ass spouting off about a subject that she knows nothing about. I want to introduce her to my friend Heywood Jabowmee.
Look at all the so called gun free zone cities, worst crime ever. Need to be armed more than ever. Government can’t protect you and the police are just minutes away, to arrive after the crime has been committed. All the stats prove overall law abiding citizens with guns deter and or rectify the crime. Thank god for 2A!!!
“… When the constitution was written, survival on the frontier depended on the ability to hunt and defend from harm and guns were important to that basic survival. We no longer live in this kind of environment …”
True we no longer live in that kind of world. It is far more dangerous now and weapons are needed to protect the farmer, the Mail Man, or the school teacher.
I’m glad that it takes 38 States to ratify a Constitutional change and happy and relieved the Justice Neil Gorsuch is on the Court.
Comments are closed.