you are confusing civil with international conflict, the western world, for the most part welcomed US intervention in conflict, even though history shows us that you guys only played the second half of WW2
However the unarmed populations of western europe, canada, australia are from being serfs
Yes. You would, too, if you (1)cared about the rule of law and (2) did the research.
{written for those that actually read}
No, no one is going to repeal it because no one even has the balls to bring it up.
There you go again, trying to tell me what I think. As I stated before, I voted YEA, but of course that didn't make it past your filters, either.
So vote that way, and call your representatives. Press them to make the law align with what you want, rather than skirting around it like a coward.
I copied the 20th Amendment ver batim, then changed Eighteenth to Second. God, you're ignorant of your Constitution. I'm really embarrassed for you.
No way of knowing who votes, how, or why. Go ahead.
And instead of voting to change the constitution, whiners whine, and people who are supposed to uphold it violate it.I say that all opinions are welcome as long as they are informed.
The Army and police force represent the State/government. It is believed, considering the way the country was founded, the writers of the Constitution had a fear of government and wanted the people to be able to arm themselves in case government got out of hand. However I do not believe that the Founding Fathers would think that assault rifles were a good thing in the hands of looneys and mass public shootings.
But instead of questioning the levels of mass public shootings, the NRA and proponents of the NRA think the ability to own large magazine assault rifles is a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution to a point that the type of collateral damage we have been seeing in the U.S. is an unfortunate, but necessary to guarantee this right. Most reasonable people, even NRA members would question this. NRA leadership stands apart from the definition of "reasonable" when it comes to guns.
Not sarcastic in the least. I'm just tired of all this crying about the Second Amendment going too far, but the criers being too afraid to actually step up. I suspect it's because they don't think they'd win the argument and the question would be settled. So long as they can avoid direct confrontation they can bitch and moan. I'm tired of it.Accountable, are you out of your ever loving mind? Cause me think you are being ultra sarcastic and it's for no real good reason. If you can get the bad guys to all agree to shoot folks with rubber bands I'd like to hear how?
Fear is not really relevant. The fear is not there because the arms are available. We won't need the right unless and until the gov't takes it away. This is the same reasoning union leaders use to preserve their political machines (they call them unions), and they have the most foolish members singing with them, but their argument doesn't stand up as well as the right to bear arms does.
Ah. Okay. I think Jefferson argued that we should rewrite the Constitution every 20 years or something. The specifics are foggy. It probably would have been a good tradition to have started back in the beginning. Our system is too corrupt and cancerous now, though, to try it. I predict the whole thing will go the way of all empires in a generation or so.
I agree. Gilded cage. Freedom entails risk of failure. Most of the western world wants their gov't to protect them against risk, against failure. That's not freedom; it's a gilded cage.
"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."
:
No I was asking you a question, but you said that you voted yes so people would not be afraid to vote yes??? What's the real answer?
Then you should have recognized the wording.
I quoted it in it's entirety in the response to Hart. exactly what trap you do think I've set? I have my reasons for my vote and I explained them. Is that the "trap" you mean?
