Maybe we need a new Constitutional Convention.

Jarod said:
I dont belive that a machine gun is necessarly the place to draw the line... But in the hands of the wrong person.... the right to life, safety and all other rights that naturally flow from those two.
Click to expand...

You need to keep your arguments separate...
we all see and realize the need for laws in a civilized society...to live together we need restraints so everyone's freedoms are maximized and protected.....WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE U. S. CONSTITUTION.....

On the other hand, we have agreed to live by the Constitution of the US.
this piece of paper spells out the inalienable rights of the citizens....
It says Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion...
It doesn't say except when, or unless....

It says the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed ...
there is no 'unless' there, or 'only these arms' , etc....

continue...
 
Last edited:
bravo said:
You need to keep your arguments separate...
we all see and realize the need for laws in a civilized society...to live together we need restraints so everyone's freedoms are maximized and protected.....WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE U. S. CONSTITUTION.....

On the other hand, we have agreed to live by the Constitution of the US.
this piece of paper spells out the inalienable rights of the citizens....
It says Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion...
It doesn't say except when, or unless....

It says the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed ...
there is no 'unless' there, or 'only these arms' , etc....

continue...
Click to expand...

Speaking of said US Constitution...maybe you should actually read it before you discuss it...

The 1st Amendment states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Just two letters and the entire meaning changes.
 
Notice the difference between the 1st & 2nd Amendments, peoplez:

1) Prohibitive on Congress (the federal govt.)

2) Prohibitive. Does not indicate who may violate it.
 
Jarod said:
Its not a law, but the funding of the Public schools is, and by extension all that is done by that funding "law" is part of that law.
Click to expand...

Government is funding nothing....THE PEOPLE are funding the public school through their tax dollars.... the government holds the job of collecting the dollars ... it is not 'their' dollars and never was....
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Speaking of said US Constitution...maybe you should actually read it before you discuss it...

The 1st Amendment states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Just two letters and the entire meaning changes.
Click to expand...

Maybe its you that needs to comprehend the language...

I used no quotes in my post, so obviously I was not quoting word for word the amendments...I was conveying an idea...and for well over 200 years we had no problem grasping what the founding fathers were saying....
 
Yurt said:
so anyone should be allowed to own a nuclear ICBM?
Click to expand...
Yes. Yes they should.

Currently anyone who would have the money to own and maintain one legally (a handful at largest), and the motivation to do so, already can illegally. And even if they were legal to sell to people, who's to say that any would be sold?

Currently we do not produce any nuclear weapons, so the odds that a company would start producing billion dollar weapons on the off chance some one wanted to buy one, are smaller than the odds that I will inherit all of Bill Gates's estate in the next 32 seconds. It's a non issue.
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
Yes. Yes they should.

Currently anyone who would have the money to own and maintain one legally (a handful at largest), and the motivation to do so, already can illegally. And even if they were legal to sell to people, who's to say that any would be sold?

Currently we do not produce any nuclear weapons, so the odds that a company would start producing billion dollar weapons on the off chance some one wanted to buy one, are smaller than the odds that I will inherit all of Bill Gates's estate in the next 32 seconds. It's a non issue.
Click to expand...

like you said, there are people who have the money to do so....and you're completely ignoring that there doesn't need to be a company who produces them, there are thousands of them here, russia, china....so someone like bill gates or george soros could buy one....

i don't believe the framers ever intended such a scenario
 
Yurt said:
like you said, there are people who have the money to do so....and you're completely ignoring that there doesn't need to be a company who produces them, there are thousands of them here, russia, china....so someone like bill gates or george soros could buy one....

i don't believe the framers ever intended such a scenario
Click to expand...
No, they probably didn't. But again, someone who could afford it and has the desire, can already have one. Prohibiting it is a greater source of danger than to allow it.
 
bravo said:
Government is funding nothing....THE PEOPLE are funding the public school through their tax dollars.... the government holds the job of collecting the dollars ... it is not 'their' dollars and never was....
Click to expand...

When the people are forced via tax to pay for something, that money cannot be used to promote religen.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Wow. That would be so great. The federal government has only proven to be an instrument by which foreign powers are trying to destroy the american people.
Click to expand...

DO you really belive that the individual states would have beaten the Natzi threat? Do you really belive that the individual states would be as powerfull economically or militarily or culturally if we had no federal government?
 
You wouldn't need a convention to do this, BTW. If Congress could actually stop thumbing themselves while thinking about how great they are they could actually put forward a "second Bill of Rights" that more clearly defined the rights and included others. If these were ratified it could be written to "replace" the other.
 
Damocles said:
You wouldn't need a convention to do this, BTW. If Congress could actually stop thumbing themselves while thinking about how great they are they could actually put forward a "second Bill of Rights" that more clearly defined the rights and included others. If these were ratified it could be written to "replace" the other.
Click to expand...

Good point... but in this age of radicalization of the sides, would it be possable....

The right would be argueing for forced prayer and the right would be looking to keep the government out of Religen....

How could they come to a middle ground that would be acceptable to anyone?
 
Jarod said:
DO you really belive that the individual states would have beaten the Natzi threat? Do you really belive that the individual states would be as powerfull economically or militarily or culturally if we had no federal government?
Click to expand...


So powerful as to have our asses owned by foreign powers? wow. so much power.

The federal government is an instrument of democide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top