• 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!

My Pet Amendment

Samwise said:
How would eliminating the 2nd amendment allow gun control?
Click to expand...

I don't support a total repeal.

The idea that the 2nd amendment keeps oppressive governments under control has never worked and will never work. Do you think that the weapons that the DoD has at their disposal would blink at some yahoo's AR15 or a hunting rifle? If they are intent on ignoring the US Constitution then mowing down those yahoos would be child's play. It's time to stop with the wild west fantasy. More guns also don't make us safer. That is a marketing idea from the NRA to sell more guns.
 
iguanaman said:
How about a prohibition of public lying instead. That would cover what you want even better. Trump would also face a fine for every lie he tells. We might even reduce his deficit with that.
Click to expand...

another case of liberals hating the bill of rights. If that law was in effect, you'd be charged for the comment that is part of my signature
 
Lisa said:
I don't support a total repeal.

The idea that the 2nd amendment keeps oppressive governments under control has never worked and will never work. Do you think that the weapons that the DoD has at their disposal would blink at some yahoo's AR15 or a hunting rifle? If they are intent on ignoring the US Constitution then mowing down those yahoos would be child's play. It's time to stop with the wild west fantasy. More guns also don't make us safer. That is a marketing idea from the NRA to sell more guns.
Click to expand...

Interesting. So you're proposing some sort of gun control legislation? Which of congress's enumerated legislative powers are you thinking might permit this legislation of yours?
 
Lisa said:
I don't support a total repeal.

The idea that the 2nd amendment keeps oppressive governments under control has never worked and will never work. Do you think that the weapons that the DoD has at their disposal would blink at some yahoo's AR15 or a hunting rifle? If they are intent on ignoring the US Constitution then mowing down those yahoos would be child's play. It's time to stop with the wild west fantasy. More guns also don't make us safer. That is a marketing idea from the NRA to sell more guns.
Click to expand...

Is anyone immune to bullets? there are 70-90 million gun owners in the USA. Many of them have served in the military, law enforcement or have substantial tactical training.
 
iguanaman said:
How about a prohibition of public lying instead. That would cover what you want even better. Trump would also face a fine for every lie he tells. We might even reduce his deficit with that.
Click to expand...

$10,000 per lie, and it must be paid by him and not a lobbyist or political party.

I also support fact-checking news sources with the same $10K per lie fine. The money would go to K-12 and public colleges for education in critical thinking.

He has the right to an opinion but he doesn't have the right to his own facts.
 
TurtleDude said:
Is anyone immune to bullets? there are 70-90 million gun owners in the USA. Many of them have served in the military, law enforcement or have substantial tactical training.
Click to expand...

Do you think that they would ever have an effect of a Bradly fighting vehicle, C130 gunship, a drone or an A10?

Most of those militia types would soil themselves if someone fired back.
 
Lisa said:
Rational levels of gun control.

The 2nd was written in an era when we didn't have a standing professional army and it create a militia army of citizen soldiers. That obviously doesnt apply now.
Click to expand...
So you favor criminals and terrorist owning the weapons?
 
Lisa said:
Do you think that they would ever have an effect of a Bradly fighting vehicle, a drone or an A10?

Most of those militia types would soil themselves if someone fired back.
Click to expand...

again, many have been in the military. and the US military isn't all going to back a repressive government. and finally, the US military is very limited in what it can deploy in civilian areas in the USA
 
Bullseye said:
So you favor criminals and terrorist owning the weapons?
Click to expand...

obviously, because the only people gun bans disarm are those who follow the law
 
Bullseye said:
So you favor criminals and terrorists owning the weapons?
Click to expand...

I never said that because I don't. Why do you attempt to put words in my mouth of such a stupid idea?
 
Lisa said:
I never said that because I don't. Why do you attempt to put words in my mouth of such a stupid idea?
Click to expand...

You want to use violence to take your neighbors weapons?
 
Lisa said:
1) How do you plan the states to make up the difference? 2) Who do you think pays those state taxes?

3) We know what the salaries of members of Congress are.
Click to expand...

1) What difference?

2) Exactly, but the states can't borrow or print that tax money like the federal government now does.

3) The cost of each congress critter would be close to 1/435 of the federal budget.
 
TurtleDude said:
again, many have been in the military. and the US military isn't all going to back a repressive government. and finally, the US military is very limited in what it can deploy in civilian areas in the USA
Click to expand...

Do you think that a repressive government willing to ignore the constitution would even consider the Posse Comitatus Act as relevant to their plans? Dictatorial types don't think like rational people.

How many people in the military know what constitutes an illegal order and would actually igniore it when threated with deadly force from others and superiors?
 
Lisa said:
I never said that because I don't. Why do you attempt to put words in my mouth of such a stupid idea?
Click to expand...
Uh, arguing that the Second Amendment is obsolete implies that you oppose the right to keep and bear arms. So, the only ones that would have guns would be the criminals.
 
Lisa said:
Do you think that a repressive government willing to ignore the constitution would even consider the Posse Comitatus Act as relevant to their plans? Dictatorial types don't think like rational people.

How many people in the military know what constitutes an illegal order and would actually igniore it when threated with deadly force from others and superiors?
Click to expand...

I can't get behind your advocacy for the initiation of violence against your neighbors to take their arms. I also don't think there is any constitutional power to implement your thuggish desires.
 
Lisa said:
I don't support a total repeal.

The idea that the 2nd amendment keeps oppressive governments under control has never worked and will never work. Do you think that the weapons that the DoD has at their disposal would blink at some yahoo's AR15 or a hunting rifle? If they are intent on ignoring the US Constitution then mowing down those yahoos would be child's play. It's time to stop with the wild west fantasy. More guns also don't make us safer. That is a marketing idea from the NRA to sell more guns.
Click to expand...

Well, that presumes that the yahoos in question act like complete idiots and engage in World War 2-style infantry fighting tactics, Lisa, and put themselves in a position to be mowed down. The United States military requires a massive and delicate logistical infrastructure to keep all of its most advanced military equipment from tanks to helicopters to jet fighters running and operational, from fuel to spare parts. Even if we assume that every one of our fighting men and women became a dyed-in-the-wool fascist overnight, against a popular uprising of a majority of citizens who would act to disrupt the delicate infrastructure and force the military to engage in house-to-house fighting in major urban centers to root out rebels, they would lose.

And that is ignoring the more horrible actions that affect morale and might spur desertion or forced defection that would come into play in civil war, such as hostage-taking of military families by irregular forces.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
1) What difference?

2) Exactly, but the states can't borrow or print that tax money like the federal government now does.
Click to expand...
Congress would do the same and still pass the huge costs to the states. Look at the GOP's love of deficit spending when they pas budget crushing policies. The GOP's support of a balanced budget would do the same but they would just not fund the policies that most people support in favor of policies that benefit the very richest. That action needs to be brought under controol.

3) The cost of each congress critter would be close to 1/435 of the federal budget.
Click to expand...
The cost of a member of Congress is +/-500K per.
 
Felis Leo said:
Well, that presumes that the yahoos in question act like complete idiots and engage in World War 2-style infantry fighting tactics, Lisa, and put themselves in a position to be mowed down. The United States military requires a massive and delicate logistical infrastructure to keep all of its most advanced military equipment from tanks to helicopters to jet fighters running and operational, from fuel to spare parts. Even if we assume that every one of our fighting men and women became a dyed-in-the-wool fascist overnight, against a popular uprising of a majority of citizens who would act to disrupt the delicate infrastructure and force the military to engage in house-to-house fighting in major urban centers to root out rebels, they would lose.

And that is ignoring the more horrible actions that affect morale and might spur desertion or forced defection that would come into play in civil war, such as hostage-taking of military families by irregular forces.
Click to expand...

The thugs are under the impression that they are the only ones who can dole out violence against their fellow man.
 
Felis Leo said:
Well, that presumes that the yahoos in question act like complete idiots and engage in World War 2-style infantry fighting tactics, Lisa, and put themselves in a position to be mowed down. The United States military requires a massive and delicate logistical infrastructure to keep all of its most advanced military equipment from tanks to helicopters to jet fighters running and operational, from fuel to spare parts. Even if we assume that every one of our fighting men and women became a dyed-in-the-wool fascist overnight, against a popular uprising of a majority of citizens who would act to disrupt the delicate infrastructure and force the military to engage in house-to-house fighting in major urban centers to root out rebels, they would lose.

And that is ignoring the more horrible actions that affect morale and might spur desertion or forced defection that would come into play in civil war, such as hostage-taking of military families by irregular forces.
Click to expand...

If they are trained in house-to-house fighting in Iraq they would do the same to Americans. They would wipe out any pockets of resistance, even fellow citizens.

Look what happened to civilians in Nazi Germany or the occupied countries who tried to rise up in resistance groups. It's going to be the same. Why is this so hard to accept?


We need a better way to stop these abusive types from getting power and reign them in what they are in power and to remove them from position of power.
 
Last edited:
Lisa said:
If they are trained in house-to-house fighting in Iraq they would do the same to Americans. They would wipe out any pockets of resistance, even fellow citizens.

Look what happened to civilians in Nazi Germany or the occupied countries who tried to rise up in resistance groups. It's going to be the same. Why is this so hard to accept?
Click to expand...

So, are we to assume that you are one of these "law and order" types that's going to get rid of guns?

Can you cite the constitutional language upon which you base your thuggery?
 
Lisa said:
Do you think that a repressive government willing to ignore the constitution would even consider the Posse Comitatus Act as relevant to their plans? Dictatorial types don't think like rational people.

How many people in the military know what constitutes an illegal order and would actually igniore it when threated with deadly force from others and superiors?
Click to expand...

most officers
most of the elite units
 
Lisa said:
Do you think that a repressive government willing to ignore the constitution would even consider the Posse Comitatus Act as relevant to their plans? Dictatorial types don't think like rational people.

How many people in the military know what constitutes an illegal order and would actually igniore it when threated with deadly force from others and superiors?
Click to expand...
First off, most military member receive training in how to deal with illegal orders. And that includes threatening other members with bodily harm.

l
 
Lisa said:
Congress would do the same and still pass the huge costs to the states. Look at the GOP's love of deficit spending when they pas budget crushing policies. The GOP's support of a balanced budget would do the same but they would just not fund the policies that most people support in favor of policies that benefit the very richest. That action needs to be brought under controol.

The cost of a member of Congress is +/-500K per.
Click to expand...

You do not understand how apportionment works. The cost would be closer to $90B/year or 1/435 of the annual federal "budget".
 
TurtleDude said:
most officers
most of the elite units
Click to expand...

Officers would be easily killed by NCOs and troops they were commanding. Do you remember the frag'ing of officers in Vietnam? The elite units aren't large enough to have a serious effect on the main body.

Instead of another civil war, we need a better way to reign in abusive politicians and political parties that put party or profit over the country.
 
Last edited:
Lisa said:
Officers would be easily killed by NCOs and troops they were commanding. The elite units aren't large enough to have a serious effect on the main body.

Instead of another civil war, we need a better way to reign in abusive politicians and political parties that put party or profit over country.
Click to expand...

disarming honest people is one of the most idiotic suggestions I have seen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom