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.
Most of the polarization in our country right now go back to division on these three issues. Until we settle these questions, I don't think there's any pathway back to civility in our politics. Would you support amending the constitution to clarify these issues and why or why not? What are your positions on them?
Religion: The left believes in absolute, two-way separation of church and state. The right believes in one-way separation, in which the government should stay out of the church but that the church can and should have a voice in how society is governed. Which is it? This question is the cornerstone of our culture war, which is the elephant in the room that impacts almost every political issue we currently face.
Speech: Both sides hold different standards for speech they agree with vs that they don't. There's no way to defend either party on this. That said, are there certain things that are over the line, especially when it comes to speech that could put others in danger? What about hate speech?
Right to bear arms: The right believes in an absolute right to bear arms no matter the cost to society or human life. The left believes that changing times require changing perspectives and what worked in the 18th century may not be the best for today. I personally can see the arguments for both, but we will never settle this issue with the Second Amendment as it's currently written.
We should change the Constitution to ban institutional racism against white people (and remove the elastic clause).
Actually, yes, it could, by making it a little harder for people intent on violence to purchase a gun.
Criminals who are intent on violence aren't buying their guns through legal channels in the first place. Gun laws aren't even a speed pump to criminals
Let's do a little refresher of history. I'm betting you know this, but let's just start by agreeing with this:
In 1775, Paul Revere and William Dawes (who few have heard of, but that's a discussion for a different day) rode through the colony alerting the families who were sleeping in their beds that "The British Are Coming!" in the wee hours. Banging on doors, rousing the well-regulated volunteer militia that they had organized for such a time as this, informing the militia that Revere and Dawes had learned that the British were planning a morning attack.
It was extremely successful. (On the part of Revere, anyway, somehow Dawes wasn't able to rouse the same response which might be why we haven't heard of him). When the British arrived, the militia was completely ready to face them, and the surprise attack the British wanted was quashed. The militia was held in very high regard, and it was the fact that the volunteer citizen militia was mobilized in a matter of hours was first in the minds of the framers of the Constitution in 1787.
And it was thus, that 2A was written:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The framers of the constitution remembered well how the well-regulated militia had been crucial to the formation of the United States of America with their defense of the colonies just 12 years prior. It seems unbelievable that the framers imagined with this amendment, they were giving rights to gang members with AR15s to rule the streets of our cities some 230 years later.
Seems they would have taken a little more care to be clear with their intent.
Gang members are getting guns illegally, and they are not going to stop. In addition, we will start seeing 3d weapons manufacturing (as well as much other manufacturing via 3d), very soon, and that is a game changer, as it makes self production of weapons even easier.
Now I would like to see a rebirth of 3 Strikes & You're Out, targeting gang activities. I also favor banning concurrent sentencing, making consecutive the only option.
Criminals who are intent on violence aren't buying their guns through legal channels in the first place. Gun laws aren't even a speed pump to criminals
Your post describes the real world something the radical democrats do not understand.
Gang members are getting guns illegally, and they are not going to stop. In addition, we will start seeing 3d weapons manufacturing (as well as much other manufacturing via 3d), very soon, and that is a game changer, as it makes self production of weapons even easier.
Now I would like to see a rebirth of 3 Strikes & You're Out, targeting gang activities. I also favor banning concurrent sentencing, making consecutive the only option.
Now you're talking! Our justice system is WAY TOO SOFT!
Well, how do you feel about birthright citizenship for babies born on American soil, to illegal residents who hopped the border to deliver an anchor baby?
Now does it seem like taking a second look at a few of the tenets of the Constitution might be a good idea?
Born on this soil a citizen of this country.
I have no issue with that.
I would focus more on making sure there are no illegals on American soil via an incredibly strong border protection protocol married up with streamlined legal immigration process.
Criminals who are intent on violence aren't buying their guns through legal channels in the first place. Gun laws aren't even a speed pump to criminals
Your post describes the real world something the radical democrats do not understand.
Armed robbers are not serious on obtaining their weapons legally.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 1 day ago)
35,583 posts, read 17,927,273 times
Reputation: 50619
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephan A Smith
Born on this soil a citizen of this country.
I have no issue with that.
I would focus more on making sure there are no illegals on American soil via an incredibly strong border protection protocol married up with streamlined legal immigration process.
I don't agree. That's what's causing a huge migration of illegal immigrants- they can produce a baby, and that's their anchor to staying, legally.
Then why do we even bother to have laws about possession of any dangerous materials, since only the law abiding will obey them?
Why do we make it illegal to possess bombs, cannons, certain military grade guns, certain poisons, tigers, dogs with a history of attacking people, venomous snakes etc, if there's no point, since only law abiding people will abide by those laws, and criminals won't?
Here's why. Because when we find the criminals possess them, we can take them away and sentence the criminals to jail time.
I'm not thinking of making gun ownership illegal for law abiding individuals, or for individuals whose families have not repeatedly raised the formal alarm that the person is planning a mass murder, Artisan, and certainly not sporting guns. I want to make the procurement of guns by people bent on using them to commit crime much more difficult, and make the penalty for their use in a crime much more severe.
It is made 'illegal' to keep the law abiding citizens 'law abiding'. Similar to: A lock won't keep a thief out, but it will keep an honest man honest.
As we lose honesty, "illegal' loses it's impact.
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.
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.
