By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Would electing the U.S Constitution to congress fix the budget mess?

richardhutnik on 02 August 2011
osamanobama said:
blkfish92 said:
How about we rebell, and that's not a joke.


we do have the 2nd ammendment for a reason, it wasnt only for hunting.

limiting the ability of a government to become to big and oppressive comes to mind.

but i dont think we are quite to that point yet

The Second Amendment has been framed in the context of individuals carrying weapons to protect themselves from criminals, as if that is the basis of what the second amendment exists, with a secondary issue being the ability to hunt.  With this context in mind, the end result is that the debate focuses on how much firepower someone needs to have, in order to meet this.  You hear the argument, "Since when do you need an automatic weapon to hunt deer?"  End result, the idea of a "well run militia", which is both to protect the citizens against enemies foreign and domestic, and equalize in case of the government becoming a dictatorship and the citizens needing to rebel, is thrown out.  The argument is all wrong.  America going superpower also has had an impact also, because it has research nukes and other things citizens militias don't have, or are allowed to have.  I am NOT saying you can't argue for people carrying a weapon for protection from crime, just that it has to be argued from what I have discussed.

I am curious if anyone wants to argue the Founding Fathers thought the intent of the Second Amendment was for people to protect themselves from being mugged.



Around the Network
osamanobama on 02 August 2011
richardhutnik said:
osamanobama said:
blkfish92 said:
How about we rebell, and that's not a joke.


we do have the 2nd ammendment for a reason, it wasnt only for hunting.

limiting the ability of a government to become to big and oppressive comes to mind.

but i dont think we are quite to that point yet

The Second Amendment has been framed in the context of individuals carrying weapons to protect themselves from criminals, as if that is the basis of what the second amendment exists, with a secondary issue being the ability to hunt.  With this context in mind, the end result is that the debate focuses on how much firepower someone needs to have, in order to meet this.  You hear the argument, "Since when do you need an automatic weapon to hunt deer?"  End result, the idea of a "well run militia", which is both to protect the citizens against enemies foreign and domestic, and equalize in case of the government becoming a dictatorship and the citizens needing to rebel, is thrown out.  The argument is all wrong.  America going superpower also has had an impact also, because it has research nukes and other things citizens militias don't have, or are allowed to have.  I am NOT saying you can't argue for people carrying a weapon for protection from crime, just that it has to be argued from what I have discussed.

I am curious if anyone wants to argue the Founding Fathers thought the intent of the Second Amendment was for people to protect themselves from being mugged.

the primary reason for the 2nd ammendment was to keep the government in check, if citizens werent armed it would be much easier for an opressive government to form, surpressing the rights of the citizens. the 2nd ammendment ensured that people have a means to rebel



blkfish92 on 02 August 2011
osamanobama said:
blkfish92 said:
Viper1 said:
blkfish92 said:
How about we rebell, and that's not a joke.

I've supported this notion for a few years now.

_____________
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security,
______________

The Declaration of Independence spells out rebellion quite well.  In fact, it's why the Second Amendment was written...to ensure the people would have a means to rebel with.


People like you give me hope.


what about me, pick me, me too!!

just becuase he beat me by a few seconds saying the same thing. trust my idea was orginal, i didnt see his post.


LOL, you also had a valid a point too.



           

MARCUSDJACKSON on 02 August 2011

have you read my sig?

it wouldn't help cause most view the Constitution differently to fi there agenda even though its straight forward.



 Zarx's unofficial The Witcher 3    

Official Playstation Vita Thread!

write reveiws, articles, share thoughts, and expand on discussion like never before on gamewise.co/brainwaves

richardhutnik on 02 August 2011
osamanobama said:
richardhutnik said:
osamanobama said:
blkfish92 said:
How about we rebell, and that's not a joke.


we do have the 2nd ammendment for a reason, it wasnt only for hunting.

limiting the ability of a government to become to big and oppressive comes to mind.

but i dont think we are quite to that point yet

The Second Amendment has been framed in the context of individuals carrying weapons to protect themselves from criminals, as if that is the basis of what the second amendment exists, with a secondary issue being the ability to hunt.  With this context in mind, the end result is that the debate focuses on how much firepower someone needs to have, in order to meet this.  You hear the argument, "Since when do you need an automatic weapon to hunt deer?"  End result, the idea of a "well run militia", which is both to protect the citizens against enemies foreign and domestic, and equalize in case of the government becoming a dictatorship and the citizens needing to rebel, is thrown out.  The argument is all wrong.  America going superpower also has had an impact also, because it has research nukes and other things citizens militias don't have, or are allowed to have.  I am NOT saying you can't argue for people carrying a weapon for protection from crime, just that it has to be argued from what I have discussed.

I am curious if anyone wants to argue the Founding Fathers thought the intent of the Second Amendment was for people to protect themselves from being mugged.

the primary reason for the 2nd ammendment was to keep the government in check, if citizens werent armed it would be much easier for an opressive government to form, surpressing the rights of the citizens. the 2nd ammendment ensured that people have a means to rebel

I am fairly sure that is what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they worked on the second amendment.  They also likely thought America would defend itself with a citizen's militia, likely in coordination with each state.  Now, look at what is going on.  Decide to do a militia, and you are a kook.  Haul yourself up in your place, and your home gets called a compound by the media, and you have ATF or whomever else on the outside.  You with your handguns, with attack choppers hovering overhead, and if it gets real bad, special forces ready to storm in.  And it gets even worse, look for a cruise missile to come in your way, or you be taken out buy a Preditor drone.  The more you try to equalize in self-defense, the worse things will get.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 02 August 2011
richardhutnik said:
Viper1 said:
I suppose if an inanimate object were capable of self awareness and mobility, the Constitution would do very well in the position.

But if he's the only member voting Yea or Nay on a bill and the remaining members all vote contrary, there's not much he could do.

Well, since it is human beings who are elected, if they aren't able to balance the budget now, I am curious how also adding the demands of the Constitution on top of it are going to balance the budget.  Won't, even with the Constitutional Amendment still find ways to do an end around, rather than do cuts?

I was wondering if it also would be possible to put "Unnamed candidate" on the ballot somewhere, and have them run.  Since I see in polling that an unnamed candidate will often beat a known candidate.


Yes and no, they'd find ways around it, but it'd already be the ways they use now... using way too rosy growth and tax collection outlooks.

They won't be able to stretch them much further then they already do so cuts would pretty much have to happen.

Or a majority Congress voting for deficits outright, which is much more damning then individual voting "sure that adds to the deficit, but i voted against his this and this which passed."