• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Real National Emergency

1. Repealing the 2nd is a tall order. It'll never happen.

All governments collapse. America has been a independent country for over 200 years. With Global Warming, it becomes foolish to say that the government we have now will last into the 22nd century. In fact, it is best for America to discard the government we have today for a better government. With free trade, and Europe moving away from the wishes of Washington DC because we are moving to be indifferent to other countries. America First, is saying we give up being a superpower and move back to a simple national standing of the 19th century. Trump is the cancer and will last decades.
 
All governments collapse. America has been a independent country for over 200 years. With Global Warming, it becomes foolish to say that the government we have now will last into the 22nd century. In fact, it is best for America to discard the government we have today for a better government. With free trade, and Europe moving away from the wishes of Washington DC because we are moving to be indifferent to other countries. America First, is saying we give up being a superpower and move back to a simple national standing of the 19th century. Trump is the cancer and will last decades.

Boy, I bet you're popular at parties in Tennessee. You should run for President. I still think there are some available slots in the Democratic Party.
 
Boy, I bet you're popular at parties in Tennessee. You should run for President. I still think there are some available slots in the Democratic Party.

He doesn't care about TN. He's just living there until he starts getting SS. Then he's going to move to Canada.

They'll listen to his nonsense there.
 
What you want doesn't change reality. The US Constitution was based on states' powers and delegated federal powers. You'd really not like states with dry counties.

Talking about states rights in the 21st century is dealing with a person stuck in the 19th century. I look forward with the hopes of a one world government in the 22nd century. States rights, is a cancer of free trade and the global commerce.
 
Talking about states rights in the 21st century is dealing with a person stuck in the 19th century. I look forward with the hopes of a one world government in the 22nd century. States rights, is a cancer of free trade and the global commerce.

How's your Mandarin?
 
He doesn't care about TN. He's just living there until he starts getting SS. Then he's going to move to Canada.

They'll listen to his nonsense there.

I think it is time that you join your wife.
 
A true conservative, would understand the history of the second amendment and wars.
Nothing to do with each other.
Lets play a game, it is the year 1800 and your from Vermont and I am from Canada. I have a trained army and I am sending 20,000 men in arms to Vermont.
An act of war.
You talk about the state right to self defense and to use a militia.
Yup. The State can organize a militia to defend itself. It can also call upon the U.S. military, since you are invading a State of the Union.
I call that a war, and what are you going to call it -- a police action?
No, I call it an act of war.
Your liberal values are showing.
Non-sequitur fallacy.
What do you call the Korea conflict, a police action too?
A war.
I am going to treat you like a child that sets in the back seats of a classroom.
You are not my teacher. I am not in your classroom.
If you are going to have a policy of the second amendment,
The 2nd amendment is not a policy. It is a law.
you have to understand the American wars of the 19th century.
Non-sequitur fallacy.
If you reject the understanding of the second amendment and wars, you are holding a very liberal understanding.
No, it is YOU that does not understand the 2nd amendment or the role of the Constitution of the United States. Understandable, since Canada has no functioning constitution.
Your not a conservative, your a bleeding heart liberal.
Non-sequitur fallacy. None of this has anything to do with political views. The 2nd amendment is a law.
 
During the Spanish American War (1898), Theodore Roosevelt from New York organize the Rough Riders to join a military unit with the blessing of the state of Texas. He got so many to join, he became a Colonel. They used there own uniforms, and was not part of the regular army. Lucky, they won a battle in Cuba. Colonel Roosevelt was never a member of the regular army, or have a lower military rank then being a Colonel. Because he was a Colonel, he used that title to become Governor of New York, then Vice President and then become the President. All because of the second amendment.

Colonel Sanders (1890 - 1980), during the 1930's spent $300 dollars to become a Colonel in Kentucky. During the depression, the state of Kentucky was selling military titles. Colonel Sanders started the Kentucky Fried Chicken fast food chain. Even today, they find a actor to play himself as Colonel Sanders. How many vets over the years decided to eat fried chicken from Kentucky Fried Chicken because the founder used the title Colonel Sanders. The title Colonel is a marketing tool. All because of the second amendment. The state of Kentucky organized a militia, and sold military titles. Today, Kentucky Fried Chicken uses Colonel Sanders as their icon. All because of the second amendment. So, the second amendment and fried chicken have something in common.

Nothing in common. Non-sequitur fallacy.
 
President Wilson was president from 1913 - 1921. He was president during World War I, not the Spanish American War of 1898. During the Civil War, and even into the Spanish American War: if you get a number of people to join in the state militia -- you could end up as a Colonel or even a General.

George Custer, during the Civil War as a Michigan Cavalry was a Major General. When he was placed in the regular army, he was a Lieutenant Colonel. In 1876, at the age of 36, he was killed in the Little Bighorn, Montana. When the Civil War was over in 1865, he was 25 years old. In the Michigan Cavalry, he was a Major General and in the regular army he was a Lieutenant Colonel at the age of 25. If you study the Civil War, there were more political Generals coming from the states or the regular army. Both the north and the south had the same problem.








States have the right under the second amendment to have a well regulated militia. It comes from the Second Amendment. During the depression, the state of Kentucky needed money any way they could get it. So Kentucky, during the 1930's was selling military titles. For $300 dollars, you could purchase the title of Colonel. That is how Colonel Sanders got his title.

No colonel or general or any other rank has anything to do with the 2nd amendment.
 
Sorry, McKinley. I was multitasking during my reply.



Even in WWII there was difference in rank between the Regular Army and the Army of the United States even for the same person. One could have a Regular Army (aka permanment) rank of colonel and be a Major General in the AUS during the war, holding the position of a major general.



The power of having a state militia doesn't come from the Second Amendment. It comes from the 9th and 10th Amendments. The Second merely protects the arms of the People from the federal government. Otherwise all the federal government would need to do to disarm the state militias is federalize them, muster them and have Congress under Article 1, Section 8 determine that the militia would have no arms.



Interesting, but not germane.

The power of the State militias come under Article 1, Section 8 (or should I say the lack of any mention of them there), the 2nd, 9th, and 10th amendment.
 
I cannot fix stupid. Militia is only said within the second amendment.
Irrelevant. States have the right to organize militias. The federal government was never given power to stop that. The 2nd amendment is redundant, but specifically mentions State militias.
Only under a very liberal understanding of the term militia, is that it is every single American.
WRONG. A State organizes but one militia. It is made up of the able bodied citizens of that State as called up by that State.
Side note of the 9th and 10th amendment. Under the constitution of the Confederate States of America -- there is no equal wording within that constitution.
There is no 9th or 10th amendment in the Confederate constitution.
 
None of the amendments grant person any rights or states any powers. The Constitution grants enumerated powers to the federal government. The Bill of Rights further restricts the powers of the federal government. The powers of the states to have militia are inherent by their existence.

Amendment X, Bill of Rights.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." US v Cruikshank, 1876.



Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution wherein the Congress derives its powers:

"[The Congress shall have Power] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"

In other words, the militia is exactly what the federal government says it is. Currently, that definition is found in 10 USC 246:

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.




Not germane.

The U.S. militia has nothing to do with State militias. A State may lend it's militia for use by the federal government (as what happened with the Rough Riders), but they are still the State militia, and have nothing to do with any militia formed by the federal government.
 
Repeal the 2nd amendment.

Ban all guns

Seize all guns not surrendered.


Is that too simple for you ?

Repealing the 2nd amendment would make no difference. The federal government still has no power to limit guns in any way. YOU don't get to dictate changes to the U.S. Constitution.
 
Okay. Go with that.

1. Repealing the 2nd is a tall order. It'll never happen.

2. The National Emergencies Act doesn't give anyone the power to repeal anything.

Until you get that first step done, you are forbidden by the Constitution from doing the rest.

Still forbidden by the Constitution from doing the rest. Article 1, and the 9th and 10th amendments still stand in the way.
Yes, repealing the 2nd amendment would be a very tall order.
 
So this thread along with a few others and some commentary by several prominent democrats unintentionally does this one thing...it fully supports Trumps declaration of a National Emergency regarding illegal immigration on our southern border. It does so by magnifying the fact that lots of people have LOTS of opinions about what the 'REAL' national emergency is. And since the only persons opinion that actually matters is the person sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office, the other peoples opinions of the 'real' national emergency is irrelevant. But its good to know that there are SEVERAL things that could be considered an emergency.

As for the OP's position that 'gun deaths' is a national emergency...well...likely everything the OP posts, he is wrong. I know...I know...NOT shocking...but...there it is.

In reverse order, and since it is the greater number, lets address suicide. We know FOR A FACT that the suicide rates in Japan, Australia, the UK, Sweden, Austria, etc are similar, in some cases identical, and on many cases HIGHER than ours. We also know that the means of suicide are COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. Australia removed firearms...their suicide rates went UP. The UK removed firearms...their suicide rates went UP. Japan removed firearms...their suicide rates went up. So only the most vapid mindless empty headed moron would believe that if firearms were not available in the US suicide rates would drop. The FACTS clearly demonstrate otherwise. And the reality is that the people that POINT to guns as a factor in suicides in the US dont actually BELIEVE they are the source or problem...they are merely USING the tragic occurrence of suicide to further their own anti-gun rhetoric. Because really...NO ONE is stupid enough to believe that if you take away guns suicide rates will drop...especially not when they KNOW...KNOW that in countries around the globe the opposite has occurred.

So that brings us to homicide rates and again...we KNOW that the problem is NOT 'guns' but the violent individuals that use them. Where do we look for examples? The same place anti gun clowns always turn to. Australia and the UK. In Australia...mass homicides INCREASED in the 22 years following the gun ban spawned by the Port Arthur Massacre as compared to the 25 year history prior. Additionally...even though many guns have been banned, Australia is seeing a surge in violent crimes...perpetrated by VIOLENT PEOPLE...not guns. In the UK...it is the exact same. In the years PRIOR to the Dunblane School massacre there was....1 mass shooting. SINCE the gun ban spawned by the Dunblane School massacre there has been...1 mass shooting. BUT...in the last 5-10 years, the UK has seen a significant increase in violent crime INCLUDING gun crimes and significantly...fatal stabbings.

The problem is NOT gun ownership and CERTAINLY not gun ownership by law abiding citizens. The problem is the perpetrators of violent crimes...something thew OP and none of the other anti-gun left has the balls to address.
 
I really do not support states rights.
So Canada has no rights, eh? No province in Canada has any rights, eh? Do you know what sovereignty is?
I travel a great deal, and I want to get the same services from one state to the next.
Canada does not offer the same services as Japan. Why would you expect them to? They are both states. They both have a government and a border. That is a state. The States of the United States are no different, except that they are United for certain purposes under a common federal government (also a state). Apparently you do not know what 'state' means.
I want to do something in one state as another state.
You can expect it no more then when traveling from Canada to Japan. There is no world empire.
In Tennessee, it is illegal to play BINGO because it is gambling.
So Tennessee has decided. You must respect their laws when in Tennessee. If you want to play bingo for money, go to a State that allows it. Try Nevada or Washington. They both allow it.
In other states nobody cares about.
Some do, some don't. There is no world empire.
Living in the south, people that talk about the 10th amendment and states rights are the crazy people.
Insult fallacy. Bigotry. The 10th amendment is law, dude.
It really gets strange when they talk about states rights and fly or display the confederate flag.
Non-sequitur fallacy. The Stars and Bars isn't was never even the Confederate flag. If people want to fly that flag, they have the right to do so. See the individual State constitutions of those States.
Because, under the constitution of the Confederate States of America -- there is no equal wording of the 10th amendment or the 9th amendment within that constitution.
There was no 9th or 10th amendment in the Confederate constitution. That constitution is no longer in force.
Saying you support states rights, and you fly or display a confederate flag -- you just do not understand what your talking about.
Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that has no idea what you are talking about. Understandable, since you have no constitution in Canada.
Second, the National Rifle Association talks about the second amendment.
Why not?
They do not talk about gun rights on the 9th or 10th amendment.
They generally don't need to.
But, for some reason you do and the NRA says otherwise.
The NRA doesn't say otherwise.
Since your a states rights person, your just part of the loony bin.
Insult fallacy. Bigotry. The 10th amend is a law, dude.
I find states rights as a cancer on the political social order.
Then Canada should not exist. Neither should any other nation, for they are also a state. No provinces of Canada. Everything is under a world empire. Dream on, dude. It'll never happen.
 
1. You're probably right

2. Well emergency powers might persuade a future president he/she has the power to ban all gun and ammunition sales.
They have no authority to do so.
Then perhaps ban only certain types of firearm - like semi/fully automatic long guns....then hand guns....
They have no authority to do so.
The right to bear arms would not be infringed of course. just that those wishing to compensate for a small appendage would have to restrict their choice to those firearms approved by the White House.
Paradox. Which is it, dude?
 
All governments collapse.
All governments of men eventually collapse. While they exist, however, they are functioning governments.
America has been a independent country for over 200 years.
Yup. We're just young 'uns.
With Global Warming, it becomes foolish to say that the government we have now will last into the 22nd century.
A meaningless buzzword has nothing to do with how long the governments in the United States might last.
In fact, it is best for America to discard the government we have today for a better government.
YOU don't get to decide the form of government for other people.
With free trade, and Europe moving away from the wishes of Washington DC because we are moving to be indifferent to other countries.
Free trade always exists. You can't kill the free market. Europe is not a nation. It is a continent made of many nations. Some are moving away from the ideals of the United States, others moving closer. They are their own nations. They can do whatever they want. A certain amount of indifference between nations is normal.
America First, is saying we give up being a superpower
WRONG. Superpower status is NOT determined by a slogan, or of a nation's self interest.
and move back to a simple national standing of the 19th century.
The U.S. became a superpower in the 19th century, dude.
Trump is the cancer and will last decades.
Trump is the President of the United States. He can serve at most eight years, not decades. He supports the Constitution of the United States (unlike most Democrats). Your personal feelings about Trump do not constitute a 'cancer'.
 
Boy, I bet you're popular at parties in Tennessee. You should run for President. I still think there are some available slots in the Democratic Party.

I'm beginning to wonder if there are going to be more Democrats running for President than the number of States in the Union.
 
Talking about states rights in the 21st century is dealing with a person stuck in the 19th century.
Nope. It's fact of the 21st century. We have individual nations. In the United States, we have individual States. It is the 21st century even now. All this still exists.
I look forward with the hopes of a one world government in the 22nd century.
Since you'll be dead, what do you care?
States rights, is a cancer of free trade and the global commerce.
Free trade is occurring right now. It always has been and always will. No nation can control free trade.
 
Free trade always exists. You can't kill the free market. Europe is not a nation. It is a continent made of many nations. Some are moving away from the ideals of the United States, others moving closer. They are their own nations. They can do whatever they want. A certain amount of indifference between nations is normal.

During the Middle Ages, Europe had a large amount of kingdoms and to get into the modern age, the Holy Roman Empire that became Germany. With the European Union, more of Europe is becoming more as a single country. With the European Union and NATO countries -- it is moving towards being a single country. Free trade has never been around. You might be thinking more online as the United States. There is no pure free trade.
 
During the Middle Ages, Europe had a large amount of kingdoms and to get into the modern age, the Holy Roman Empire that became Germany. With the European Union, more of Europe is becoming more as a single country. With the European Union and NATO countries -- it is moving towards being a single country. Free trade has never been around. You might be thinking more online as the United States. There is no pure free trade.

If there's ever a single world government, it's not going to be a free-trade driven happy happy joy joy Socialist paradise. It's going to be a dictatorship of some sort, and it won't be Westerners in charge.
 
If there's ever a single world government, it's not going to be a free-trade driven happy happy joy joy Socialist paradise. It's going to be a dictatorship of some sort, and it won't be Westerners in charge.

We have been moving towards a single world government since the ending of World War II. We are along way from it. I say sometime around 300 to 500 years from now.
 
We have been moving towards a single world government since the ending of World War II. We are along way from it. I say sometime around 300 to 500 years from now.

In the year 2525.....
 
Back
Top Bottom