Quote of the Day: Second Amendment 2.0? Edition

Paul Adinolfi (courtesy trwitter.com)

“Since everyone in our country agrees we do not want criminals and the mentally unstable to possess guns, then why not bring the Second Amendment into the twenty-first century, and rewrite it, to make it clear that ‘only law-abiding and mentally stable people have the right to bear non-military guns!” – Paul Adinolfi in The gun industry has been getting away with murder [via newstimes.com]

[NOTE: I know Mr. Adinolfi is flipping you off but no ad hominem attacks allowed. All flames will be deleted.]

comments

  1. avatar Hawkeye says:

    I want criminals and the mentally ill to own guns.

    People who sell pot and people who get depressed sometimes absolutely have a right to self-defense with a firearm.

    1. avatar ActionPhysicalMan says:

      With so many laws on the books, it is hard to imagine that anyone hasn’t violated some of many laws at least a few times. It is just a matter of whether the monstrosity takes notice of or gets irritated by you somehow. If you think you are safe from prosecution (for any reason (including innocence)), you are probably mistaken.

      1. avatar Mr. 308 says:

        (OT) Hey APM, I saw on other thread your post about the desoxyn thing, I wasn’t clear and wasn’t responding to you, just wanted to make sure you saw that note. Sorry – I should have been clearer there. 🙂

      2. avatar 16V says:

        We are all at the mercy of a Fed Prosecutor. Everybody who actually does anything at all will eventually commit some felony. If they want you, they will get you.

        http://mic.com/articles/86797/8-ways-we-regularly-commit-felonies-without-realizing-it#.eiUOUZidY

        1. avatar Avid Reader says:

          If you ever want an eye-opener, read Harvey Silverglate’s Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent.

          http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent-ebook/dp/B00505UZ4G?tag=duckduckgo-d-20

    2. avatar Henry Bowman says:

      More proof that if we had stricter immigration laws during the “golden” era this subversive and countless more would not be able to reduce our Liberty.

    3. avatar Ed says:

      Hawkeye….your an A-hole. EVERYONE has the right to self defense. Fifty years ago we had places for the truly mentally ill.

  2. avatar tsbhoA.P.jr says:

    so, military guns for everyone else?
    harsh.

  3. avatar jwm says:

    Not an insult. A question. Is that his age? IQ? Or number of friends he had before his dog died?

    See, I can be nice and hold a civil conversation.

  4. avatar Publius says:

    I’m guessing the censorship threat is because the guy in the picture is fat and most of the TTAG staff are fat and would have their feelings hurt by the comments? Just a shot in the dark…

    And before you cry and reach for the “delete” button, you should look up the definition of “ad hominem” – stating a fact is not an “ad hominem attack”.

    1. avatar 505markf says:

      Well, truth is an absolute defense against libel, so you have something of a point. Saying he’s fat is accurate and truthful. Adding much in front of or behind “fat” would turn it into an ad hominem.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        Calling him fat is truthfull. Calling him a fat basterd may not be truthfull. Was his parents married? To each other? Does his father believe he looks like the mailman?

        See the can of worms you open when you go past, Fat?

    2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      …you should look up the definition of “ad hominem” – stating a fact is not an “ad hominem attack”.

      Obviously, you have failed to take your own advice. An ad hominem logical fallacy does not hinge upon the veracity of the statement, but rather the relevance of the statement to the issue being discussed, as opposed to the speaker. Any statement that involves the speaker, but not the extant issue, is an ad hominem logical fallacy, whether true or not.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        FLAME DELETED

        1. avatar Anonymous says:

          WITH A TTAG FIREHOSE

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        I’ll bet Chip is the life of any party that he attends!

        Okay, all chiding aside, Chip is correct on this. And the main reason that we should be reluctant to launch ad hominem attacks is because it distracts from the truth which is always on our side.

        Bonus question: was my opening statement a veiled ad hominem attack on Chip? If I were not being playful, yes, it would be. And it would distract from the truth of Chip’s statement.

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          What’s a “party”?

        2. How about a meet and greet shoot followed by a bourbon tasting soirée?

        3. avatar Tom in PA says:

          Good points guys. If all the ad hominem content was deleted, along with all the other logical fallacies employed, some of these threads would be rather bleak. Also, I would like to snap that finger of his right off and kick it around on the ground.

        4. avatar Mack Bolan says:

          And this is why conservatives lose most arguments to emotionally driven liberals.

          Scott Adams defines it as such:

          Persuasion Stack

          Identity (best)

          Analogy (okay, not great)

          Reason (useless)

          Definition (capitulation)

          So eliminating ad hominem from the tool box is a losing strategy employed by the “its not if you win or lose, its how you played the game” crowd. In other words, beta males.

    3. avatar Milsurp Collector says:

      I don’t blame him for trying to prevent an onslaught of tired “LOLZ HE’S FAT” comments. If you’re gonna insult someone, show some creativity.

  5. avatar C.S. says:

    Yeah, all those people shot and killed in South America… I bet they blame the gun industry…

    1. avatar CRF says:

      It’s the gun industry’s fault that people don’t get to hack each other up with swords and axes any more, and it’s the gun industry’s fault that there are weapons that women and the (physically) weaker elements of society can wield as effectively as the strong young men now.

      Darn gun industry, leveling the playing field. Brutal deaths by melee weapons and the physical dominance of young males was much more civilized than what we have today.

  6. avatar James says:

    What’s that old saying about better to not speak and be thought of as a fool rather than speak and remove all doubt?

    We already are basically restricted to non military guns. If Paul wasn’t a reactionary fool, he’d have known that.

    But as it all the rage everywhere these days, emotionalism and lashing out rules.

  7. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    Sorry Mr. Adinolfi, the type of firearms I can own is not up for debate.

    1. avatar Patron49IFT says:

      Correcto! Also, I give a single shite what he thinks about anything. Just glad he is not King of the world and able to implement his goofy ideas.

  8. avatar Mike in Ohio says:

    Because, sunshine, rewriting the second amendment would be tantamount to the weak willed republicans kowtowing to progressive statists. Another step to confiscation. Let’s enforce straw purchase laws for 5 years and see where the numbers are then.

  9. avatar Shawn says:

    The piece reads like a high school Junior term paper. Also, full of the same blah blah “statistics show” nonsense.

    1. avatar Mr. 308 says:

      This guy is precious. He wrote this while drunk, I am fairly certain.

      “Like our President, advocates for safe gun reforms (practically our entire nation)”

      Really? This whole entire nation? Got any details on this claim? No, he doesn’t.

      “constant conflict with the Republican-dominated Congress”

      Not sure he understands the meaning of the word dominated.

      “the gun, ammunition and sales corporations, who make the Yankee dollar”

      What does this even mean? Corporations make dollars?

      “When America won its wars to reduce deaths, injuries, and sickness against the automobile and tobacco industries”

      Oh, so these things have been won? Good to know.

      “Connecticut and states with gun registration and licensing have reduced gun violence — statistics have proved”. Ok then, no need to worry about this one, statistics have proved it. Because that’s what statistics do, prove things.

      “The Second Amendment is our only national gun law” Oh good gravy. It’s not a freaking law, genius.

      “and when it was written, they did not have a weapon of mass destruction” Um, no. The AR-15 of the time was the musket, and it was capable of mass destruction, statistics have proved it.

      “When the laws of one state affect the safety and welfare of the citizens of another state, then a uniform national law is required.” Really? All laws of the various states affect the welfare of those in other states, it could be argued. So perhaps we should just get rid of states altogether and just let the feds take over everything. Statistics have proved it.

      “How many Connecticut youths were unnecessarily killed or injured coming home from New York, because both states had different minimum drinking ages? It stopped only when all states agreed on a national minimum drinking age of 21.”

      I don’t know, how many? 5? 1,000? Oh, so it’s stopped now, because as we all know the magic age of 21 is when all teenagers suddenly and completely become wise and prudent in their drinking. Statistics have proved it.

      This guy is about as unserious as it gets, barely able to write – heck barely able to think past talking points and the meme “Statistics have proved it.”.

      And he wants to rewrite our second amendment, and someone thought this rant was worthy enough to publish. It’s sad really. Statistics have proved it.

      1. avatar Xanderbach says:

        Someone should show it the statistics from the american civil war- The bloodiest conflict this country has ever fought. With muskets.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          Rifled muskets. A whole other animal from a musket.

      2. avatar Cliff H says:

        “Since everyone in our country agrees…”

        Anyone who starts an argument with this phrase is addle-pated. If in fact everyone in America agreed with his position then he would not have to make the argument at all and there would be no issue. Revoking or revising the Second Amendment would already have occurred or be in the works and facing no opposition. Which would be, by the way, the first time in the history of The United States of America that the population ever agreed unanimously on anything, much less the revocation or revision of any portion of the Bill of Rights.

        And by the way, during the revolutionary war both sides made very good use of a “weapon of mass destruction” – canon filled with grape shot.

  10. avatar Arkansas kurt says:

    If you are a dangerous criminal who can’t be trusted to legally own a firearm (but can get one anyway, no matter how many laws are written) then you should be in prison. If you are not, then your rights should not be taken away. If you are an unhinged lunatic who can’t be trusted to legally own a firearm (but can get one anyway, no matter how many laws are written) then you should be in an asylum. If you are not, then your rights should not be taken away.

  11. avatar 505markf says:

    I completely agree with him. Time to stop messing around on the gun control side and begin the process – there is one for amendments thanks to those pesky founders – to update the Second Amendment. The anti-gunners need to stop all this politically-correct pussy footing around, expressing fake support for the 2A, stop their whining about “gun safety” and simply bring it.

    Here you go: five easy steps to a gun-free America. https://reason.com/reasontv/2015/10/07/how-to-create-a-gun-free-america-in-5-ea

    Now. Start working the process and shut the hell up with all of the whining and tears. Cowboy up and get it done. You are loosing the battle for the hearts and minds of the real people out there that make this country work, but that’s ok. We understand. And we do not care what you think.

    1. avatar Xanderbach says:

      I keep posting this video in anti-gunner facebook posts, but they never do it. It’s a step by step guide, people!

  12. avatar surlycmd says:

    After reading his entire article, I believe him to be a special snowflake with fascist tendencies.

  13. avatar Pwrserge says:

    Fun fact, claiming that “statistics show” without citing said statistics makes your entire argument irrelevant sophistry.

  14. avatar Model 31 says:

    A worthless idea from a nobody.

  15. avatar Alex Peterson says:

    I’ll be awaiting his follow-up piece “First Amendment 2.0” – “…only law-abiding and mentally stable people have the right to free speech.” Of course, he won’t write it because then he would realize how ridiculous his 2nd Amendment “article” is.

  16. avatar Chris Morton says:

    How is it that this “genius” plans to disarm the Chicago, Atlanta and New Orleans Police Departments?

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Or their counterparts, the Crips and Bloods, or whoever it is this week.

  17. avatar 'liljoe says:

    So, in the Middle Ages (I think) archers used to use their middle finger to draw their long bow. If captured by the enemy, they would have it cut off, so to show defiance and a will to fight, they would flip off their enemies. So, in an ancient gesture tied to “military style assault weapons” of years past we have someone who wants to limit our access to weapons…. Irony much?

    1. avatar Phil LA says:

      Is that the history of the bird? Interesting, and nice pull!

      A little tooooooo ironic…

    2. avatar Jet says:

      Not that it has anything to do with the Second Amendment, but the middle finger archer story is a modern fairy tale with no basis in fact. The middle finger insult has been documented for over two thousand years.

    3. avatar syms says:

      Actually that is the basis of the modern “peace” sign. During the hundred years war, the french would cut off the index and middle fingers of captured archers because those were the fingers used to draw a bow, the English archers used the “peace” sign as a sign of defiance. Then in WWII, Churchill used it as “V for Victory,” then the hippies ruined it and turned it into a “peace” sign. Or at least that’s how I’ve heard the story

      1. avatar Xanderbach says:

        Yeah- I heard the “english bird” (V sign, back of hand towards the target) comes from archers showing they still have their archery fingers. Could be BS, but it’s a great story.

  18. avatar Phil LA says:

    Man, ____ that ____________.

    Better?

  19. avatar Cloudbuster says:

    You post a guy who not only writes an idiotic article, but he takes a photograph giving an obscene gesture to gun owners, and you want me to be civil in return? Sorry, I pass.

    1. avatar Robert Farago says:

      Thank you.

  20. avatar Sixpack70 says:

    So no military weapons? Does that mean you would allow me to keep my M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, M44, M91/30, M98/48 and M1903A3? Those are my actual weapons of war, most likely fired in combat and potentially all of them have killed another human being(03A3 maybe not). Scary guns like my ARs, AKs, SCAR, etc have never been on the battelfield, ever. They have only been used to kill paper and steel.

    But of course the author’s suggested changes entirely destroy the purpose of the 2A. It doesn’t say we can bear only non military arms. It says arms, period.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      And SCOTUS’ reading on 2A when considering NFA was that 2A only applied to military-style arms, because militia.

  21. avatar Blake says:

    I believe the following quote from Ms. Rand says it best in regards to the idea that only law abiding people and sane people should have guns:

    The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.

    -Ayn Rand

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why we should not prohibit “felons” from having firearms … because the ruling class can declare every single one of us as criminals through the “justice system”.

      And if that isn’t suitable, the ruling class can use our mental health resources to have every single one of us declared as mentally incompetent to own firearms. After all, a near universal meme among gun-grabbers is that our ownership of firearms quite literally demonstrates that we are mentally defective — in their minds of course. And while you might initially laugh at such a concept, it won’t be a laughing matter if gun-grabbers write their meme into law.

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why we should not prohibit “felons” from having firearms … because the ruling class can declare every single one of us as criminals through the “justice system”.

        Pre-fricking-cisely!

        This is why I think the NRA does actual harm to gun rights, because they are all about keeping guns out of the hands of “criminals” and enforcing existing law. (“Existing law” can, of course, change over time in precisely the direction you and I are worried about, and it has done so in the past, yet the NRA spews the same drivel.)

      2. avatar Cliff H says:

        “If you agree that the government has the authority to create, maintain and enforce a list of persons who, in the opinion of that same government, may not exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, how will you keep YOUR name off of that list?” – Cliff H

  22. avatar Bob says:

    dangerous man. So sure his way is the right way and the only way and that everything should change to suit his opinion. So if someone wanted the change the 14th amendment, that’s ok? Because they “feel” that way? What makes one person’s opinion wrong and another’s right and how is that enough justification for change on the scale we are talking about?

    1. avatar John E> says:

      He is not dangerous. He is the type of person who is likely of average intelligence (IQ=100), somewhat self loathing and projects that onto others. FLAME DELETED

  23. avatar Armond Hammer says:

    Of the two first amendments the right to free speech is the more dangerous. Bad ideas have killed more people than gun crime and gun accidents combined. How many wars, genocides and death camps were started by apprppriate silence?

  24. avatar Ted says:

    Mr. Adinolfi,

    Since “everyone in our country agrees” with your premise, you should have no problem amending the constitution to codify your tyrannical ideas into law.

    Until then EXPLETIVE DELETED.

    Yours truly,
    A Gun Owner

  25. avatar James69 says:

    The more “they” talk about this the more gun sales go up. Keep talking idiots. The “used” market is flooded with AR’s right now. Hell some are still NIB. At the rate we are going production/sales in a few years the “AR Bubble” will burst and prices will drop.

  26. avatar Kevin Collins says:

    No need to “rewright” the second Amendment . It’s just fine as written along with the rest of the constitution .

  27. avatar TravisP says:

    So what is a military weapon? AN A-10, an M240, or the Mossberg 500 I used for deer hunting? I know the Marines issue the M500, what about a Remington 700? The same used by Marine Snipers and millions of hunters? The M9 aka Beretta 92? The list goes on.

  28. avatar Joe R. says:

    Why can’t people acknowledge that we already decided how to do that. It’s kind of tough, and it will require less EXPLETIVE DELETED of those we allow to do it.

    Faster if we just civil war it.

  29. avatar Larry says:

    I think he’s just really proud of what he just pulled out of his EXPLETIVE DELETED and wanted us to see. Very nice! FLKAME DELETED

  30. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    So… He’s saying that a well regulated militia should be able to own non-military guns?

  31. avatar Mikele says:

    OK then how about this… None of us want our feelings hurt, and some words DO hurt. So why don’t we bring the 1st Amendment into the 21st century and re-write it.?.
    See where I’m going with this? Don’t mess with our rights.

  32. avatar Sian says:

    ‘only law-abiding and mentally stable people have the right to bear non-military guns!”

    Hey, FLAME DELETED. Find me one modern military in the world that issues semiauto-only carbines. FLAME DELETED

    Yet again an uninformed FLAME DELETED tries to blame weapons that account for fewer homicides in a year than lightning strikes and Africanized bees. Because they’re scary-looking.

    1. avatar Sian says:

      Aw come on.

      That was just salty language. Not a single Ad Hominem in sight.

  33. avatar IL-annoyed says:

    The founders were much smarter and forward thinking than are given credit. The Constitution doesn’t rely on how someone feels, thankfully.

  34. avatar seniorgunowner1950 says:

    The First Amendment is our only national press and journalist law. When it was written, the Americian colonies did not have high speed mass circuliation printing presses, or radio or telivision or cable or any other means of letting illertiate so called journalist supue out mass stupididy. Since we can all agree that only educated responsible and ballanced journilism is in the public interest, we need to re-write the First Amendment to keep ithe stupid, the llertiate, and the unballaced from writing or speaking and especiall spuing nonsense into any public debate.

    Why not bring the First Amendment into the twenty-first century. It needs to rewriten to make it clear that only law-abiding and mentally stable people who’ve passed a backround check, have been licensed and have the right to excersise First Amendment right. It’s only common sense. We ALL know that ideas are dangerous thing that need tightly and responsible controled. Let’s do it for the protection of the children
    seniorgunowner1950

  35. avatar Sean in MT says:

    So, if we just change the second amendment, then criminals won’t break laws anymore by illegally buying guns? Wow! I’m impressed that nobody has been this smart before and it took this long to solve that problem! He’s SMART!

  36. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    I made it one paragraph: ” …advocates for safe gun reforms (practically our entire nation) only want an innocuous, “non-infringing” background check law passed, ”

    So I have to ask, if that is what you want why is everything you suggest everything but that?

  37. avatar mk10108 says:

    From the article…”However, the gun industry — the gun, ammunition and sales corporations, who make the Yankee dollar — are the financial culprits who help support and promote them, and are able to maintain anonymity.”

    The real culprits are legislators creating laws denying and depriving citizens of lawful self defense. Every person who writes, speaks (including a middle finger), for gun control enables criminals to rob, rape, assault and murder.

  38. avatar SurfGW says:

    It needs to be rewritten to make it clear to judges and SCOTUS that it is about RKBA and not about a State’s right to Sherriffs and National Guard.

  39. avatar Ron E says:

    What exactly is a “non-military” gun? Seems Mr. Adinolfi doesn’t know it’s already illegal for criminals and the mentally unstable to possess a firearm of any kind.

  40. avatar Larry says:

    Hahaha! My first time making a comment and the big erasure comes out. What? I thought that I was being nice. Sorry to TTAG and followers.

  41. avatar pres stone says:

    why would i bother talking to a person that is too stupid to construct a basic argument and results to gestures? i wouldn’t.

  42. avatar Parnell says:

    ” The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning, but without understanding”. – Justice Louis D. Brandeis

  43. avatar BDub says:

    Problem 1 – Define “mentally ill”.

    Problem 2 – Define “criminal”.

    Problem 3 – Way to sneak “non-military” under the tent. That’s a whole other conversation.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      Problem 4 – Define “…shall not be infringed.”

  44. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    My goodness.

    I look forward to appreciating the extreme cleverness with which Mr. “I’m number one!” phrases such an amendment. We must be careful that it can’t be ued to keep “the wrong people”, as a hypothetical example, say, black people, from owning guns.

    As was done with other “public safety” laws. And voting laws. And licensing of bus systems, or so I have heard.

    If that’s the real goal of Mr. INO, that would make him a racist. So, that can’t be it.

    Scribe away, Mr. Polite person. Elegant language impresses me. Thrill me with your acumen.

    While we’re adding restrictions, can we ban guns for the intantionaly rude, too. You say you are anti-gun, so it shouldn’t bug you at all that you don’t get one either. By law. You are less than we.

    Scribe away. Good luck with that.

  45. avatar Milsurp Collector says:

    Adolf, I mean Adinolfi and others like him are incapable of contemplating the implications of this method when it is inevitably proposed in every conversation about gun control. Allowing the state to define who is “law-abiding” or “mentally stable” inevitably devolves into the following as proven by the past 100 years of world history alone:

    “You can’t own a gun because you…
    …didn’t vote for the correct political party last year
    …donated money to the wrong political party last year
    …criticized the current administration on the internet
    …wear aggressively pro-gun clothing in public etc
    Enjoy your permanent NICS denial.”

    When antis propose things like mandatory psych evaluations for gun ownership, I always respond with “Where’s the system of recourse and appeals? If some shrink with an anti-gun bent hands everyone who walks into his office a denial because he can, then how do you overturn it?” They’re dumbfounded, either because they believe doctors (now agents of the state hint hint) are infallible and if you’re deemed crazy it’s obviously for a good reason, or that all the incorrect “crazy” labels in the world won’t mean anything to them because “I’m not into guns anyway.” This is all more than enough reason to avoid the slipperiest of slopes.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      From Wikipedia:

      “The following is a list of mental disorders as defined by the DSM and ICD.

      The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is the American Psychiatric Association’s standard reference for psychiatry which includes over 450 different definitions of mental disorders. The International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) is published by the World Health Organization, and it contains a section on psychological and behavioral disorders. The diagnostic criteria and information in the DSM and ICD are revised and updated with each new version. This list contains conditions currently recognised descriptions of mental disorders as defined by these two documents.”

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mental_disorders

      Take special notice of the phrase: “The diagnostic criteria and information in the DSM and ICD are revised and updated with each new version.”

  46. avatar Hannibal says:

    At least he’s looking at going about this the right way- via Constitutional amendment rather than trying to go around the Constitution.

    Still, screw him. But better than everyone who says “I respect the second amendment BUTTTTT….

  47. avatar Watts' Twat says:

    I have a problem with the current campaign by BOTH pro and anti 2nd Amendment forces to strip those with “mental illnesses” of BOTH their firearms and their 2nd Amendment Rights.

    The fact is according to crime statistics the “mentally ill” are far more likely to be victims of “violent crime” as such denying them the ability to defend themselves violates THEIR right to “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness”.

    The 2nd Amendment Shall NOT Be Infringed, it’s as clear as day. Only those who use firearms in a “criminal manner” should be prosecuted and EVERYONE should be armed.

  48. avatar LS/HD says:

    We’ll probably never learn for sure if they are tied together by design, but today’s announcement proposing annual mental health evaluations to identify depression and prescribe anti-depressants makes me think that the anti-gunners are getting more creative.

    The old “guns are a public health issue” rears its ugly head over and over again.

  49. avatar James69 says:

    Caption – “Yuck Fou, I’m eating”

  50. avatar Ing says:

    That guy seems to have a very short…er…middle finger.

  51. avatar wes says:

    So does that mean that law breakers and mentaly unstable folks are the only ones who can own military weapons?

  52. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Yeah let’s rewrite it-get rid of the militia thing and just go with “shall not be infringed”. No ATF,No checks,no license needed,open carry for all. Ted Cruz for president…(I WAS going ad hom but my insult thing is too obvious)…

  53. avatar Phil says:

    Sigh.

    What exactly is a “non-military” gun?

  54. avatar Bobiojimbo says:

    Innocent until proven guilty. Once we start preemptively restricting one right, we set the legal precedence to preemptively restrict other rights.

    I want criminals and the mentally ill to own guns, because until we prove they’re guilty, they’re innocent – just like everyone else.

  55. avatar fishydude says:

    What a tool. That is how Mexico disarmed the people.
    Their version of the 2A says the people have the right guns except those designated only for government and military use.
    There is only one legal gun store in the entire country. And most of the weapons on display cannot be bought by mere mortals.
    But the cartels have no problem getting all the firearms they want.

  56. avatar neiowa says:

    Who? DId I hear a noise?

  57. avatar Anonymous says:

    only law-abiding and mentally stable people have the right to bear non-military guns!”

    Being that all firearms share a similar design to a firearm that was once a “military” gun…
    Also – what is wrong with military guns? What really is the difference?

    1. avatar James69 says:

      “They” want us to have .22’s 12 and 20 ga. for hunting but we can have all the pre-1898 guns we want! What a deal!

  58. avatar jwm says:

    I want the 2a changed also. I want it worded so that ANY infringement, ANY at all, on the people’s individual right to keep and bear arms is a death penalty violation on the part of the person pushing the infringement.

    Simple enough for even a low iq, fat, alkie to understand?

  59. avatar Sam Enderby says:

    Me and Tubby agree, change the constitution if you can / dare. Otherwise, F*** off.

  60. avatar Matthew says:

    Isn’t it illegal in some places to make obscene gestures? I believe the gentleman just voided his own right according to his proposed 2.0 amendment!

  61. avatar John Boch says:

    Dear Mr. Paul Adinolfi:

    Please acquaint yourself with the lyrics of “Love Yourself” by Justin Beebs.

    Specifically, “…you can go and love yourself.”

    That is all, sir.

    John

  62. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    Well, I think we’re in trouble. I just realized, you flip people off when you’re winning the argument.

    Oh, wait.

  63. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    I know Mr. Adinolfi is flipping you off, which is why he is such a swell guy and worthy of intellectual discussion.

  64. avatar Wood says:

    Heh heh heh
    Pull my finger

  65. avatar Wulfric says:

    He’s right, we do need an updated 2nd Amendment for the 21st century, because apparently “Shall not be infringed” isn’t clear enough

  66. avatar PeterK says:

    I don’t like pretentious people or rude gestures. This guy seems to be ticking off some boxes for me today.

    Would he say the same thing about the medical industry or the car industry? Maybe he would. He’d probably have a better case in an industry where there is actual willful neglect going on. People that make tools cannot be held culpable for the acts of the users of said tools no matter how much you don’t like the tool in use.

  67. avatar IdahoPete says:

    OK, fine and dandy, Mr. Paul Adinolfi. Go ahead, change the Second Amendment. The process for doing so is found in the Article V of the Constitution:
    “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

    So shut up and get the process going. Call me when you have it ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the States. Otherwise, close your yap.

  68. avatar anomad101 says:

    Would Will Rodgers like this man?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email