Only in your warped thought processes. To prove you are 100% correct, provided a referenced url to posts that those "handful of posters" asked for the repeal of the 2nd. We have a saying here which is appropriate: p or get off the pot.

So Mike Pence is an innocent virgin that wants to clean up the USA & sanctify life?
Never going to happen until the 2nd is brought into the 21st century.
As a former teacher you are aware that if the correct wording is not used in a statement, that statement leaves itself open to having it picked apart.

Hi Sirius B...

Thank you for finally understanding despite your denials and Bernie's Vine's excuses for you.

My stating that the 2nd Amendment is truly a part of this discussion. Was 100% correct.

Of course it was!!!

I give up you have missed the point totally.

I give up you have missed the point totally.

You should give this much more thought.

Either that or you are purposely trying to wind people up, but of course that would not be nice now would it.

Also, sorry for the film post earlier, yes I knew it would get a wrist slap, but God help me, I could not resist it :-)

Straw man

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."

The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition.

This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or an understanding of both sides of the issue."

---

To take a leaf out of your handbook, which is constantly updated with many repetitions, here is a repetition for you. Straight forward question:

To prove you are 100% correct, provided a referenced url to posts that those "handful of posters" asked for the repeal of the 2nd.

Hi Sirius B...

Please, in the future, give the entire post and my entire reply before making your (Straw Dog?) accusation.

No need for that however what is definitely needed is some semblance that you can "comprehend" points being made - Can you do that?

Yes that is fine however, Sirius did not ask you about the whole USA he asked specifically "Who on here has asked for that" which to me meant who on these political forums has asked for that.

Not who in the USA has asked for the repeal of the 2nd amendment.

Sirius was asking for where "a handful of posters" had said repeal was necessary'

So why suddenly turn the argument inside out just because it was Sirius who asked.

Therefore no need to continue lengthen a post by un-necessary repetition as the software used for these boards provide 3 options - Post/Reply/Quote. It is not the fault of other posters that any individual fail to see what is in front of them. :-)

Don't forget to pop into a library on your way. A book on comprehension will be nice :-)

Please explain your meaning behind the statement:

Never going to happen until the 2nd is brought into the 21st century.

Exactly what does 'bringing the 2nd into the 21st century' entail in your POV?

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Please explain your meaning behind the statement:

Never going to happen until the 2nd is brought into the 21st century.

Exactly what does 'bringing the 2nd into the 21st century' entail in your POV?

You disappoint me. That was posted with my POV much earlier in this thread as well as by others with similar POV's only to have them rubbished without any serious thought by "ssssh, you know who" :-)

You disappoint me. That was posted with my POV much earlier in this thread as well as by others with similar POV's only to have them rubbished without any serious thought by "ssssh, you know who" :-)

Doen't appear to be an answer to the question in there anywhere...........

I just want you to state clearly what, in your opinion, needs to be done to 'bring the 2nd into the 21st century'. Very simple to answer.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

I find it very hard to comprehend US attitude to guns.
Many Americans feel the same!
Do we really understand the Second Amendment anymore?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2017/11/10/dd6c994a-c505-11e7-84bc-5e285c7f4512_story.html

How did the United States become a country where half of gun owners feel intolerably constrained if they can't own an assault-type weapon or a high-capacity magazine?

How did the United States become a country where half of gun owners feel intolerably constrained if they can't own an assault-type weapon or a high-capacity magazine?

One word answer 'Infringement'.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

How did the United States become a country where half of gun owners feel intolerably constrained if they can't own an assault-type weapon or a high-capacity magazine?

One word answer 'Infringement'.

Infringement of what?
Every citizen in all countries in the world has the right to self defense using weapons if necessary.
Why is it so totally different in the US?
Don't you have police and an army over there?

You disappoint me. That was posted with my POV much earlier in this thread as well as by others with similar POV's only to have them rubbished without any serious thought by "ssssh, you know who" :-)

Doen't appear to be an answer to the question in there anywhere...........

I just want you to state clearly what, in your opinion, needs to be done to 'bring the 2nd into the 21st century'. Very simple to answer.

Okay, after returning to page 1 of thread (so far 28 in total - on my settings anyway), I reached page 14 & gave it up as reading too much bullsh*t in a day is too much. So to give a very simple answer to which IT should be possible to see where it is heading. It still comes back to 2 words:
Clarification
Definition

The Constitution of the United States of America was ratified in 1791 CORRECT?
Automatic & Semi-automatic weapons did not exist at that time CORRECT?
This is 2018 CORRECT?

Facts do not matter to the 2nd amendment people, what does matter is the unimpeded right to shoot when they feel like it with whatever weapon they choose.

---

Facts do not matter to the 2nd amendment people, what does matter is the unimpeded right to shoot when they feel like it with whatever weapon they choose.

no matter how unsafe the discharge ...

That is sad but I do have to agree with what all you Americans say on here regarding non-Americans. However, when those same non-Americans see the Vice President of the most powerful nation on the planet wanting to ban legal abortion while at the same time do sweet FA to stop unarmed children from being massacred in places where they attend to be taught how to make a good future for themselves is despicable.

As a non-American I would like to know WHY Americans allowed 2 dipsh*ts into such positions of power without having their beliefs in an ancient & outdated parchment rammed down our throats.

Clarification
Definition

The Constitution of the United States of America was ratified in 1791 CORRECT?
Automatic & Semi-automatic weapons did not exist at that time CORRECT?
This is 2018 CORRECT?

Correct on all three points, no need to be confrontational about it.

Clarification: Where does the 2nd make ANY exception as to the type of 'Arms' the citizen has a 'Right' to 'Bear'?
The next phrase 'Shall Not Be Infringed' strictly interprets there are no restrictions under the 2nd Amendment.

Definition: https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/06/30/what-does-the-word-arms-mean-in-the-2nd-amendment/

Some relevant excerpts from the reference site:

But what did the word “arms” mean at the time?

"Today the word “arms” refers collectively to offensive or defensive weapons. The word’s meaning has changed little since it was first used seven hundred years ago. It’s definition has never restricted civilian use of military weapons, including when the Second Amendment was approved."

“Arms” comes from Middle English and originated from the Old French word “armes,” which meant “weapons of a warrior.” This word dates back to 1300. “Arms” also originates from the Latin word for “weapons,”arma.” This word was also first used in the 14th Century. (On a side-note, the word “firearms” popped up around 1640 to describe weapons that used gunpowder compared to other arms like bows and arrows)"

The Bill of Rights of 1689 states that the “subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.” From this we can conclude that the word “arms” referred to weapons found among contemporary military arsenals.

In 1755 Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language was first published. It defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.”

Again, the meaning does not exude military weapons.

Since the word “arms” means the same thing today as it did centuries ago it’s only logical the authors of the Second Amendment meant the same thing. And unlike the English Bill of Rights, there are no limitations placed on the right to keep and bear arms in the U.S. Constitution.

Not that it would matter, since it is a natural right not a privilege granted to us by the government. But it removes this one final argument a gun control advocate might make to justify restrictions.

But most importantly, the same people who advocated for the Second Amendment preferred an armed populace over a standing army.

There is more to the article but IMHO any change to the 2nd is prohibited by it's own wording. It's like altering the 1st Amendment to limit Conservative or Liberal speech.. Any changes would render both Amendments null and void.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

That is sad but I do have to agree with what all you Americans say on here regarding non-Americans. However, when those same non-Americans see the Vice President of the most powerful nation on the planet wanting to ban legal abortion while at the same time do sweet FA to stop unarmed children from being massacred in places where they attend to be taught how to make a good future for themselves is despicable.

As a non-American I would like to know WHY Americans allowed 2 dipsh*ts into such positions of power without having their beliefs in an ancient & outdated parchment rammed down our throats.

The difference between murdering children in a school or a clinic escapes me, other than the fact there are no names attached to the murdered victims of a clinic.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

We are painfully aware of those points & not disputing either the constitution or any of it's amendments. When the constitution was ratified, with the arms that were available at the time, how many could be killed, say, in the space of 5 minutes?

Move forward 227 years, how many killed in 5 minutes using an automatic or semi-automatic weapon?

For such a modern society, it's belief in an outdated parchment beggars all description.

Languages move on with time as does societies. It seems the USA wants to remain locked into the past.