• 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!

A few proposed amendments

Howard the Duck said:
You are a very limited debate partner. Someone better will be around shortly. I'll debate them instead of you.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting way of conceding you haven't much ability to actually support the silly restrictions on freedom you crave.
 
Howard the Duck said:
You are a very limited debate partner. Someone better will be around shortly. I'll debate them instead of you.
Click to expand...

Your debate skills and knowledge about the 2nd Amendment are limited so you back out of the debate while accusing TD of having limited debating skills. Cute. :roll:
 
NonoBadDog said:
Your debate skills and knowledge about the 2nd Amendment are limited so you back out of the debate while accusing TD of having limited debating skills. Cute. :roll:
Click to expand...

Address my posts. I'd be happy to debate you.

Where in the constitution does it suggest that individuals should wield the same firepower as does the state?

I await your thoughtful response--provided that you can avoid attacking me personally by calling me among other things a liar, a hypocrite, and stupid as did the turtle dude.

This forum where civility is a must advertises better conditions than that.
 
Last edited:
Howard the Duck said:
Address my posts. I'd be happy to debate you.

Where in the constitution does it suggest that individuals should wield the same firepower as does the state?

I await your thoughtful response.
Click to expand...

the second amendment.
 
Howard the Duck said:
Apologize and I will consider your post.
Click to expand...

WTF would I apologize? people like you are trying to restrict my rights based on the fraudulent claim that the rights of honest people have to be ruined in order to prevent mass murderers or killers from getting guns.
 
JimHackerMP said:
Our constitution could use a bit of an overhaul. There are a few amendments I could foresee the utility of, however.

Congressional Compensation

Sec. 1. The XXVII article of amendment to the constitution is hereby repealed.
Sec. 2. No law, varying the compensation for the services of senators and representatives, shall take effect for at least ten years.
Sec. 3. Senators and representatives shall receive a salary, paid out of the Treasury; as well as a compensation for expenses to be strictly monitored by the Treasury, and cash salary for serving as officers and on committees of either house. But no senator or representative shall receive any other emolument or salary other than the aforementioned cash salary.

(affects 27th Amendment; and Art. I, Sec. 6, cl. 1)

Gerrymandering

I wouldn't know how to word this one. But prohibit the "enumeration" of representatives by political or politically-related authorities by the state governments after each national census.

(affects Art. 1, Sec. 2, cl. 3)

Limits on bills--content

All bills must relate to but one subject, to be expressed in the title, and all amendments thereto must be germane.

A lot of states have this, Maryland included. Typically, our bills do not exceed 50 pp I understand.


Any other thoughts?
Click to expand...


I want to see one bill, one vote. No tacking things on, no adding pork or other nonsense to a bill to try and tank it or play politics. One bill, one vote

I want an amendments that prevents companies from owning politicians thanks to Citizens United. BUt of course, that won't happen, congress has their hands all over the corporate money
 
TurtleDude said:
WTF would I apologize? people like you are trying to restrict my rights based on the fraudulent claim that the rights of honest people have to be ruined in order to prevent mass murderers or killers from getting guns.
Click to expand...

I am under no obligation to debate you. Welcome to my ignore list.
 
TurtleDude said:
its not a personal attack,,,you are saying something you cannot possibly back up and which you have no rational reason to believe is true.
Click to expand...

Another thread going to **** by posters who do nothing but troll and can't make an intelligent, factual argument
NonoBadDog said:
Your debate skills and knowledge about the 2nd Amendment are limited so you back out of the debate while accusing TD of having limited debating skills. Cute. :roll:
Click to expand...



As you offer nothing to refute what the person said, correct what is wrong, and just say "you are wrong." Yes, that's stellar debate tactics there.
 
Howard the Duck said:
I am under no obligation to debate you. Welcome to my ignore list.
Click to expand...

Well I managed to survive almost 13 years of not having any interaction with you, your threat means nothing. However, I will continue to thrash stupid arguments whether you respond or not.
 
Sampson Simpson said:
Another thread going to **** by posters who do nothing but troll and can't make an intelligent, factual argument




As you offer nothing to refute what the person said, correct what is wrong, and just say "you are wrong." Yes, that's stellar debate tactics there.
Click to expand...

liberal gun haters tend not to do very well on sites where there are posters who are experts in gun laws and gun usage. WE who oppose stupid gun laws generally oppose such nonsense because we are avid competitive shooters, hunters, gun collectors. In other words, we understand firearms, their usage and the laws surrounding them. Gun banners almost NEVER come to their position after having years of experience using, owning, collecting or buying guns. They almost always come from a position of ignorance about how guns work, why people use them and the laws surrounding them. Generally, they dislike guns not because they understand them but because of ignorance -but more importantly, they dislike the politics of gun advocates nd those of us who vote for gun rights candidates

Since the motivation of the anti gun posters has nothing to really do with gun issues, its not surprising that these posters come off as unlearned and ignorant about guns. SO they often post nonsense such as claiming AR 15s are "massive killing machines" or that "bump fire stocks turn a semi auto into an automatic weapon" or other similar twaddle. And when the gun restrictionists are lampooned for posting idiocy (see my signature for one glaring example), the gun banners either double down on their lies or they become more and more hostile to gun advocates (thus proving that their real motivation has nothing to do with criminals)
 
Helix said:
by drawing non-gerrymandered districts, i would guess.
Click to expand...

due to population density variation, isn't it going to be subjective no matter what?
 
Sampson Simpson said:
Another thread going to **** by posters who do nothing but troll and can't make an intelligent, factual argument




As you offer nothing to refute what the person said, correct what is wrong, and just say "you are wrong." Yes, that's stellar debate tactics there.
Click to expand...

Good call.
 
Helix said:
no, a computer is perfectly capable of drawing districts using population density data.

here's one example :

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ing-in-his-spare-time/?utm_term=.8d8689931370
Click to expand...

The math is pretty easy. If theoretical congressional district representation deviates too far from how the state performs as a whole it is gerrymandering.

For instance my state is virtually 50 50 in gubernatorial and presidential elections, but Republicans get a structured advantage in 12 out of 16 congressional seats.

Obviously we are gerrymandered.
 
Last edited:
faithful_servant said:
Two four year terms for all congresscritters and then never again to be allowed to be any part of politics ever again.
Congressional elections held every four years in non-Presidential election years.
Two nine year terms for SCOTUS with a "vote of confidence" after their first term from the Senate. Each seat is either confirmed or appointed on it's own year, so unless there is an unexpected vacancy, only one seat can be changed each year.
Click to expand...

Love these.
 
Howard the Duck said:
How about:

1. No President can issue pardons until their last day in office. No co-conspirators are eligible.

2. No President can fire a special counsel, special prosecutor or independent Counsel. Only a majority vote of the Supreme Court is sufficient.
Click to expand...

Yeah alot of stuff has happened in the last few years that we never expected to happen. Things that we didn't plan on having to worry about.
 
Howard the Duck said:
Address my posts. I'd be happy to debate you.

Where in the constitution does it suggest that individuals should wield the same firepower as does the state?

I await your thoughtful response--provided that you can avoid attacking me personally by calling me among other things a liar, a hypocrite, and stupid as did the turtle dude.

This forum where civility is a must advertises better conditions than that.
Click to expand...

Judging by your actions, where you quit debating TD when challenged beyond hyperbole, I can't think that you would honestly debate. I think all I would get is a bunch of posts that were filled with emotionally driven anti gun drivel.
 
NonoBadDog said:
Judging by your actions, where you quit debating TD when challenged beyond hyperbole, I can't think that you would honestly debate. I think all I would get is a bunch of posts that were filled with emotionally driven anti gun drivel.
Click to expand...

No, I quit when he started calling me names. That isn't debate. That's Trumpism. No, thank you. I'm under no obligation to accept abuse.

If you want to debate? I'd like that. If you want to be abusive? I'll pass.

Your call.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom