• 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

End birthright citizenship. At least one of the two parents must be American. If only one of the parents is an American, the child must be born in the USA. However, that child would have special favored status to go thru the naturalization process to full citizenship.
 
TurtleDude said:
I am curious, you constantly make comments about my past office. what do you think you accomplish by that?

the fact is-democrats in Va, California, Maryland, NJ, CT, and NY prove what their ultimate goals are.
Click to expand...

I think their goal is to regulate guns into a tight corner but I personally think, while that will cut gun misuse, it is still only a half measure and that only a ban will achieve the removal of guns from society with all the safety and liberties that go along with that.
However they're working on the quite correct premise the a repeal of the 2nd amendment is unlikely.

(I'm sure I don't have to say I don't favor a ban on all and every firearm).


Your posts cast doubt on your claims to have 30 years experience in prosecution and also be a constitutional lawyer. You betray a high level of partisanship that I wouldn't expect a lawyer with that amount of experience to say.

But I don't want to make this personal, I actually quite like debating with you, even though you often descend into far right hysteria about gun control leaving you "defenseless".
 
joko104 said:
End birthright citizenship. At least one of the two parents must be American. If only one of the parents is an American, the child must be born in the USA. However, that child would have special favored status to go thru the naturalization process to full citizenship.
Click to expand...

So say a soldier marrying a Korean woman and having their child born in a US military hospital in Korea is out of luck ?
 
TurtleDude said:
if you repeal the 17th senators stop being whores who pander to special interests all over the country and would be more likely to push the interests of their home states
Click to expand...

He is right people. So very correct.
 
Rich2018 said:
So say a soldier marrying a Korean woman and having their child born in a US military hospital in Korea is out of luck ?
Click to expand...

I feel pretty safe, since I was once in the Army, of saying his wife and his child is a citizen.
 
Add PET amendment.
 
Robertinfremont said:
He is right people. So very correct.
Click to expand...

And senators can vote for anything they want...with an accompanying open hand for the highest bidder to fill for their vote

I feel pretty safe, since I was once in the Army, of saying his wife and his child is a citizen.
Click to expand...

Ant I would agree with you

However not Joko104 who said "...if only one of the parents is an American, the child must be born in the USA..."
 
Terryj said:
Repeal the 17th amendment, make Senators responsible to their State Legislatures again.

Enact a Balanced Budget amendment
Click to expand...

So Senators will be relegated to being unelected appointees once more ?
 
Rich2018 said:
So Senators will be relegated to being unelected appointees once more ?
Click to expand...

Rich, Senators were never representatives of the people, they were the voice of the States in the central government. The Peoples resentatives are the members of the House.

Prior to the 17th amendment, a Senator could be recalled by the State Legislature if they deemed they were not doing their job for the State, now days we have to wait 6 years to get rid of a Senator.
People did have a say in who was going to be Senator, this was done via their Representative and Senators on a State level. The people would make their opinions known both pro and con about who was selected.

Now in today's world, the Senators are not beholden to the State but to a political party, so now they have to prostitute themselves before the people and make promises they can not keep. If the people vote in a bad Senator then they have to live with it for the next six years, the State has no recourse to remove the Senator.
 
Terryj said:
Rich, Senators were never representatives of the people, they were the voice of the States in the central government...
Click to expand...

So they were political appointees and you'd relegate them back to that role

Unaccountable to the people they are supposed to serve ?

What is wrong with the people electing a senator ?


Prior to the 17th amendment, a Senator could be recalled by the State Legislature if they deemed they were not doing their job for the State, now days we have to wait 6 years to get rid of a Senator.
Click to expand...

I agree it's too long, I'd make it 4 years (also increase the term of a Congressman to 4 years)


People did have a say in who was going to be Senator, this was done via their Representative and Senators on a State level....
Click to expand...

Really?

So let's suppose you're a Republican, are you really going to vote for a Democratic state government to change the senator ?


The people would make their opinions known both pro and con about who was selected.
Click to expand...

In state elections ?


Now in today's world, the Senators are not beholden to the State but to a political party, so now they have to prostitute themselves before the people and make promises they can not keep. If the people vote in a bad Senator then they have to live with it for the next six years, the State has no recourse to remove the Senator.
Click to expand...

The state therefore, has no power over the senator.

Do you really want a situation where a state government can snap its fingers and order a senator to vote a certain way ?
If a senator truly feels he/she should vote against their party, in favor of the interests of the people in their state, what would they have to fear - the people in their state would still support them ?
 
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...

Being in the military does not make you immune to Hellfire Missiles. Nor does it mean you shoot through the armor of an Abrams tank. Not only that, but a government which is actually “tyrannical” would absolutely not give a **** about collateral damage
 
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...

I couldn’t think of a faster way to get the military to commit to crushing a civilian rebellion than the news that the civilians were trying to take their family members hostage. It would be beyond idiotic, would lose the would be rebels any support from the overwhelming majority of Americans regardless of what the government had done, and would end with very few of the would be rebels still in the land of the living.

The Iraqi insurgents thought the same thing about Fallujah. It didn’t work for them.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Being in the military does not make you immune to Hellfire Missiles. Nor does it mean you shoot through the armor of an Abrams tank. Not only that, but a government which is actually “tyrannical” would absolutely not give a **** about collateral damage
Click to expand...

Which destroys the claim of gun owners that their guns are needed to prevent a tyranny arising in the USA.
 
My Pet Amendment?

No more Pet Amendments.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Being in the military does not make you immune to Hellfire Missiles. Nor does it mean you shoot through the armor of an Abrams tank. Not only that, but a government which is actually “tyrannical” would absolutely not give a **** about collateral damage
Click to expand...

people cannot live in a tank forever
 
Rich2018 said:
Which destroys the claim of gun owners that their guns are needed to prevent a tyranny arising in the USA.
Click to expand...

his opinion destroys nothing.
 
Tigerace117 said:
I couldn’t think of a faster way to get the military to commit to crushing a civilian rebellion than the news that the civilians were trying to take their family members hostage. It would be beyond idiotic, would lose the would be rebels any support from the overwhelming majority of Americans regardless of what the government had done, and would end with very few of the would be rebels still in the land of the living.

The Iraqi insurgents thought the same thing about Fallujah. It didn’t work for them.
Click to expand...

Well, I was positing a scenario in which the military went completely fascist and lost all support of the citizenry except an extreme minority of the civilian population, and turned their guns upon the civilian population without regard for collateral damage, killing armed and unarmed civilian alike. I do not think anyone would care what happens to the families of soldiers staying within the military in such a situation other than fellow soldiers. And I think a conflict in which the U.S. military lost all civilian support would be one in which the military loses, because the military relies on the civic infrastructure of the United States to function. Now, they might commandeer it, requisition supplies, and perhaps impress some swathes of the civilian population into service at the point of the gun, but I think a well-armed civilian populace would be able to withstand them.

But I would not say that such a conflict would be anything short of calamitously bloody.
 
Rich2018 said:
1. Increased Freedom

2. Increased Security

3. Increased Safety

4. Saving lives and saving people from needless injuries
Click to expand...
So how would an unarmed woman fare against a group of home invaders when you've eliminated the 2nd amendment? Would she have increased security and have her life saved?
 
Rich2018 said:
So if Democracy is strong enough to resist dictatorship in those countries, why do you fear America's democracy is so much weaker and fragile ?
Click to expand...
Do you think it will be? What time frame are you talking about? The next year, next ten years, next fifty years? I'm wondering how you think you can make assertions about such future conditions.
 
Rich2018 said:
Gun bans will disarm law abiding citizens, yes of course they will

And by definition, people disobeying a law banning guns will be criminals

And yes, criminals will have guns longer - decades even. But so what ?
Click to expand...

So your laws tip the balance in favor of the criminals. Thanks.
 
Felis Leo said:
Well, I was positing a scenario in which the military went completely fascist and lost all support of the citizenry except an extreme minority of the civilian population, and turned their guns upon the civilian population without regard for collateral damage, killing armed and unarmed civilian alike. I do not think anyone would care what happens to the families of soldiers staying within the military in such a situation other than fellow soldiers. And I think a conflict in which the U.S. military lost all civilian support would be one in which the military loses, because the military relies on the civic infrastructure of the United States to function. Now, they might commandeer it, requisition supplies, and perhaps impress some swathes of the civilian population into service at the point of the gun, but I think a well-armed civilian populace would be able to withstand them.

But I would not say that such a conflict would be anything short of calamitously bloody.
Click to expand...

Even during the worst— and last— days of Nazi Germany you didn’t have people trying to whack the family members of SS personnel. Targeting people simply because of who they are related to makes one every bit as bad as those one claims to oppose. Even if the rebels were to somehow succeed, it’s be a great way to end up with their leadership at The Hague, because the international community would not normalize relations with people who made targeting non combatants a deliberate matter of policy.

Again, no matter how well armed you are, you can’t stop an armored column or a helicopter gunship, and you’d die rather quickly.

Hypotheticals are all well and good, but targeting non-combatants is wrong, no matter who they are related to.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
people cannot live in a tank forever
Click to expand...

....Yes, then they live in military barracks which are, by nature, heavily guarded and not easy to attack. It’s not like one can just set up a sniper post outside and hope that you can shoot the first person that wanders by—- drones make you a sitting duck. As technology advances, the ability of insurgents to engage a regular army in the field— which, by the way, were never great— has shrunk tremendously.
 
JD1965 said:
Got a pet amendment you'd like to see proposed to the Constitution?

One you think would break the status quo and redirect the ship of state?

What subject matter do you think supersedes others in importance for an amendment today?
Click to expand...
The major problem with our current system is that one party can consistency control the Presidency, Senate, and SCOTUS while simultaneously consistently losing the popular vote by millions of votes in presidential and senate elections. So we need amendments to fix that. E.g., abolish the electoral college, and require SCOTUS justices to be confirmed by 60% of the Senate.

The problem, of course, is that a constitutional amendment must generally be approved by two/thirds of the Senate or State Legislatures, which are not proportionately representative of the national population....

Hence the coming constitutional crisis. A minority of this country is constitutionally capable of controlling 2.5 out of the 3 branches of government and preventing the majority from doing anything about it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom