DNC Vice Chair Publicly Demands Repeal of the 2nd Amendment

Strong suggestions coming from a DNC official about the 2nd Amendment.

Karen Peterson Tweeted a New York Times op-ed story by John Paul Stevens (you know him right?)

Repeal the 2nd is the message.

My God what's next ?


KarenCarterPeterson

DNC Vice Chair Publicly Demands Repeal of the 2nd Amendment

The Vice Chair of Civic Engagement and Voter Participation of the Democratic National Committee has called for the repeal of the Second Amendment.

Louisiana Democratic Party Chairwoman Karen Carter Peterson on Tuesday issued a four-word tweet as she shared a link to a New York Times op-ed written by former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens that advocated for the Second Amendment’s repeal.

“Repeal the Second Amendment,” she tweeted.

“Repeal the Second Amendment,” she tweeted.

That hurts my feelings and offends me. Repeal The 1st Amendment!!
I'm mean, that's fair...right?

Funny how her twitter bio says she's involved with "voter protection."

I guess we're gonna protect voting rights with kind words and hugs

a reply to: xuenchen
You know darn well that is not what was meant. But since we are on the subject can I have your guns???

The left keeps pushing this snip those midterms are not going to go their way.

Fascists,Fascists everywhere.

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: xuenchen
You know darn well that is not what was meant. But since we are on the subject can I have your guns???

Please...clear the record for those of us without time to avail ourselves with all the daily twists and turns of this nightmare.

a reply to: xuenchen

Attacking the 2nd has worked out well for the Marxists in the past. Perhaps this time it will work better?

The only repeal they will get will be 1776.
There are two things I will never do:
1. Renounce my faith in the Lord my God.

2. Surrender my right to defend myself,friends,family, and neighbors.

Completely repealed, no. But I think it is entirely reasonable to say that the 2nd needs to be clarified and expanded upon to be very specific.

I would think a 2nd amendment advocate would support such a thing because, as we have seen throughout many years, it is that the lack of clarity in the 2nd amendment that have given courts the fuel to say that it is within the power of the states to regulate arms as they so choose.

Remember, the constitution limits what the federal government can do and all other powers are relegated to the states. Which actually leads to our right being infringed upon, over and over.

My fellow 2nd amendment supporters cannot seem to grasp that for some reason.

a reply to: VashTheStampede

2. Surrender my right to defend myself,friends,family, and neighbors.

That is not a very good argument. An anti-2nd advocate could easily tear that to pieces. Your right to defend yourself is not defendant upon a right to bear arms.

We need to come up with better arguments and prepare pro-2nd supporters to intelligently articulate their rights.

As of now, it's pathetic and embarrassing.

originally posted by: introvert
Completely repealed, no. But I think it is entirely reasonable to say that the 2nd needs to be clarified and expanded upon to be very specific.

I would think a 2nd amendment advocate would support such a thing because, as we have seen throughout many years, it is that the lack of clarity in the 2nd amendment that have given courts the fuel to say that it is within the power of the states to regulate arms as they so choose.

Remember, the constitution limits what the federal government can do and all other powers are relegated to the states. Which actually leads to our right being infringed upon, over and over.

My fellow 2nd amendment supporters cannot seem to grasp that for some reason.

Bet your all for the brown shirts arresting people for hate speech too?

Hell, let's have a day of Marxism where we just burn that damned evil piece of paper called the Constitution to the ground! I mean by Jebus look how edumacated people are who are demanding the gubment to have MOOR POWER!???

That was all blatant sarcasm to prove a point!

Seig Heil!

a reply to: seeker1963

That was all blatant sarcasm to prove a point!

I think you forgot to hint at what your point was and how it relates to what I posted.

Seig Heil!

Was that sarcasm as well, or were you just practicing?

a reply to: introvert

It is extremely clear. Shall not be infringed. It didnt qualify thay statement in any way. Shall not be infringed.

a reply to: xuenchen
I guess the Dim party wasn't dying off fast enough.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: introvert

It is extremely clear. Shall not be infringed. It didnt qualify thay statement in any way. Shall not be infringed.

I wonder why all the so called smart people refuse to understand those four little words.

Shall not be infringed.

It's clearly spelled out.

The state has NO POWER to limit/deny/disparage/INFRINGE arms to the people.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: seeker1963

That was all blatant sarcasm to prove a point!

I think you forgot to hint at what your point was and how it relates to what I posted.

Seig Heil!

Was that sarcasm as well, or were you just practicing?

I am literally Hitler dude! How do you think I know you and your kind were full of it calling Trump Hitler? Reincarnation is NO JOKE! roflmao

Try again comrade!

a reply to: introvert

The problem is you Marxists have no respect for the Bill of Righs or restricting the scope of those rights . It’s dangerous and a slippery slope I have zero interest in negotiating away ANY of my rights. No one in their right mind would try to take away rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

a reply to: neo96

They tend to just ignore those words as they cant be interpreted any other way.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: VashTheStampede

2. Surrender my right to defend myself,friends,family, and neighbors.

That is not a very good argument. An anti-2nd advocate could easily tear that to pieces. Your right to defend yourself is not defendant upon a right to bear arms.

We need to come up with better arguments and prepare pro-2nd supporters to intelligently articulate their rights.

As of now, it's pathetic and embarrassing.

What is pathetic and embarrassing is that the left, who consider themselves morally and intellectually superior, simply cannot understand "shall not be infringed".

Pretty simple concept there, I would think.

Pro-2A should not have to defend it at all.

Rights should not be eroded and degraded, clarified and expanded. They are our rights.

If they need to be changed, it should be by another Amendment.

I am hoping that the left starts a big push for that, actually.

I mean, at least be intellectually honest and stop nibbling the right away with state and federal laws. Come out of the closet and ask for an Amendment.. put it to a vote and take the results. Stop lurking around in the shadows and virtue signalling about it. Stop attempting to change the right by manufacturing a crisis (gun free zones), having the crisis (school shooting) and then propose a solution (tougher and tougher and tougher restrictions on that right).

We've all read Rules for Radicals now... we all understand what is going on.

What is embarrassing is watching that unfold.

a reply to: xuenchen

The process to amend the Constitution is spelled out in it. She and her cohorts can get the process started if she so chooses. It still won't get rid of the right, it'll just remove the protections against the government interfering with it.

Just because she's all in her feels about guns doesn't mean that a wand can just be waved and poof, the 2nd is gone. Follow the existing process, I'm sure a supermajority of the states will be in favor of abolishing the 2nd...