U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-04-2019, 10:54 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
67,209 posts, read 34,226,645 times
Reputation: 14471

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
police forces come from a demographic that supports gun ownership and gun rights.

That is incorrect. There are only a handful of Elected Sheriff's that actually fight for your right to keep & bear arms.
The majority of the police, want the public unarmed.





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdwpCVDjU3E
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-04-2019, 10:56 AM
 
39,786 posts, read 41,146,672 times
Reputation: 16474
Quote:
Originally Posted by njbiodude View Post
Define state?

"and the state", it doesn't say "for the state".


Quote:
Federal government? Local police? Your town? Your HOA at your development? Until that is properly defined noone can agree. My impression was it meant the federal government and especially the army. Go ahead prove me wrong with quotes from everyone that wrote it stating otherwise.
This is from the PA Constitution and would refer to the state of Pennsylvania. Point is it predates the US Constitution and is nearly as old as the US itself, it has many of the same authors and ideas as the US Constitution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2019, 11:01 AM
 
4,889 posts, read 1,288,818 times
Reputation: 2288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigma777 View Post
The Constitution can and should be amended.

We did it with Prohibition.

Not a reason in the world we can't do it now, other than the NRA owning the president and GOP. That can change in the future, and probably will. Enough is enough.
There's a process, get on with it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2019, 11:04 AM
 
Location: New Mexico
6,861 posts, read 3,800,037 times
Reputation: 12940
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjshae View Post

I wonder what the SCOTUS would rule on states requiring gun owners to serve in a militia? I.e. if you purchase a gun that can be used in a militia, then some number of weekends per year must be spent under orders in a militia. I'll bet gun owners would howl.
I actually think this is a good idea and probably very close to what the second amendment was all about. The Founding Fathers were suspicious of standing armies and we only had a small force, "The Legion", that was engaged with Indian wars in Ohio. The Whiskey Rebellion (1794) was put down mostly by state militia led by George Washington, the President. That was the last time a sitting President led troops in the field. The second amendment is not about people hoarding guns or distributing them willy-nilly to nutjobs. That is not close to being "well regulated".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2019, 11:05 AM
 
5,110 posts, read 1,909,441 times
Reputation: 4839
You can add the electoral college as another mistake they made never imagining its consequences 200 years out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2019, 11:07 AM
 
30,273 posts, read 15,727,034 times
Reputation: 20365
Quote:
Originally Posted by SunGrins View Post
I actually think this is a good idea and probably very close to what the second amendment was all about. The Founding Fathers were suspicious of standing armies and we only had a small force, "The Legion", that was engaged with Indian wars in Ohio. The Whiskey Rebellion (1794) was put down mostly by state militia led by George Washington, the President. That was the last time a sitting President led troops in the field. The second amendment is not about people hoarding guns or distributing them willy-nilly to nutjobs. That is not close to being "well regulated".
Well, you're completely wrong.

The 2nd was written for the individual not for agents of the government which is why it is in the Bill of Rights.

Do you know why it's called the Bill of Rights?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2019, 11:08 AM
 
2,930 posts, read 2,808,695 times
Reputation: 1269
Other countries have issues with strict gun control. England still has shootings, stabbings and beheadings and most of their cops can’t even carry guns. Gun control is only good for those who obey the laws. Criminals by definition dont follow laws.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2019, 11:08 AM
 
Location: Northwest Peninsula
3,280 posts, read 1,634,034 times
Reputation: 1779
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeyJude514 View Post
There, I said it.

In their defense, they had no idea what that amendment would result in some 200+ years later, no way to know the kind of advanced weaponry that would be invented and fall into hands they don't belong in, no way of knowing how Americans would misuse and abuse the amendment in ways they never intended.

But here we are.

It's time to consider amending the Constitution again.

If the 2nd amendment was done away with...than what?

Government entering into millions of homes of law abiding citizens and confiscating their guns? If you want to see violence on a mass scale try taking away law abiding citizens of their right to bear arms.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2019, 11:11 AM
 
30,273 posts, read 15,727,034 times
Reputation: 20365
Quote:
Originally Posted by MMS02760 View Post
You can add the electoral college as another mistake they made never imagining its consequences 200 years out.
We are the UNITED. STATES, not the Nation of america.

The founders wanted most government to be handled by the states. They wanted the states to elect their representatives. They wanted states to cast their vote for POTUS.

You want a new election system for the POTUS. That's fine, but I doubt that will ever happen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2019, 11:13 AM
 
781 posts, read 390,954 times
Reputation: 2525
Quote:
Originally Posted by MMS02760 View Post
You can add the electoral college as another mistake they made never imagining its consequences 200 years out.
WTF? The electoral college works exactly as it was intended. What you call “consequences” the founders might deem a rejection of stupid democracy (i.e. three wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top