And I am free to express my opinion, so don't you forget that! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Giacomo Rappaccini
Printable View
And I am free to express my opinion, so don't you forget that! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Giacomo Rappaccini
Well, one down, now you just need to find about 150 million or so like minded individuals willing to actually vote for a constitutional amendment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Nope, it takes two thirds.Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelred5
Correct. Two thirds of the combined house and Senate to propose an amendment, then three fourths of the state legislatures or ratifying conventions of three fourths of the states ratify the proposed amendment. About 150 million voters to set that in motion ;) Of course there are a couple more less likely methods to request congress propose an amendment. We are far more likely to pay off the national debt before we ever see an amendment which fundamentally alters the content of the second Amendment.
But it only takes a simple majority to rule on how the written word should be interpreted as a clarification is not an amendment to the Constitution.
Correct, and the supreme court has done that very clearly very recently, striking down prohibitive firearms laws in the nations capitol and maryland.
Senator Dianne Feinstein,
I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government's right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma'am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.
I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.
I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.
I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.
We, the people, deserve better than you.
Respectfully Submitted,
Joshua Boston
Cpl, United States Marine Corps
2004-2012
Read more: Joshua Boston To Sen. Feinstein's Gun Control - Business Insider
I like senator Dianne Feinstein.
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/
She and chuck Schumer are both hypocrits. Both currently hold concealed carry permits while advocating prohibiting citizens from carrying the same weapons. Feinstein carrys a .357. Nad both surround themselves with an armed security detail.Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
Dianne Feinstein
Quote:
Feinstein claims that she has since relinquished both the handgun and the concealed weapons permit.
claims. Statements from her armed guards have also stated otherwise. Chuck Schumer's unrestricted and current permit is public record.Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
There is a sense in which she's being more courageous in mounting this campaign than are the vast majority of firearm owners.Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
It's not all about being too thick to learn, though, is it? Some very intelligent people may go on making the same mistakes, whether punishable ones or not. There may be other mitigating circumstances.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
In general, though, your words are very wise.
Sorry, forgot above to respond to this. I think your whole approach to the subject is, as explained above, most commendable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
I'm glad you, unlike others, acknowledge the cultural aspect. It came to mind again this morning upon hearing news of a triple shooting in Switzerland. In no way do Switzerland's relatively liberal gun laws concern me anywhere near as much as do the laws in the US, because I feel that the underlying culture in Switzerland is way different.
Courage would be for her to stand up and say what she really means, that she would like to repeal the 2nd Amendment altogether. At least that I would respect, wouldn't agree, but respect.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Writing common law to circumvent a Constitutionally protected right, in my opinion, should be an impeachable offence. But I'm sure, once again, you will not be able to take your emotions out of this to see past your fear into what is right under the legal system of this country.
So does her constituency: "she claimed the record for the most popular votes in any U.S. Senate election in history, having received 7.75 million votes in 2012".......One of those i am proud to say was mine. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3462AZJRsiI
So at least you have come out and finally admitted it. You just don't like Americans, or at least you somehow don't trust us because of our "culture". How is it that my culture, my beliefs, my foundation to my moral life is any different than a Swiss person's (or was this guy still an Iraqi, same question regardless)? What makes the Swiss "culture" better, more moral? Why is the cold blooded murder of 3 individuals for no reason what-so-ever less monstrous than the cold blooded murder of 20? Is it simply numbers?Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
I find this statement of your's truly troubling.
A bit off topic (ok way off topic), but she's not even close to the record for percentage of the vote. Richard Lugar won 87.4% of the vote in 2006 (not sure if that's a record, just a number I know). Feinstein only got 62.5% in her election.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Giacomo Rappaccini
Whether deliberately or not, you completely misunderstand and misrepresent what I wrote. I criticised a section of American opinion; you take this to mean that I 'don't like Americans'. This is utter nonsense, and I'd ask you to apologise. I don't like the American gun culture, true, but this is a very different thing. Surely you have the wit to draw the distinction?Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
'Truly troubling'? Really? Cease the hyperbole.
As I expected — you don't truly believe in freedom of speech and expression. It's just a front. As soon as it diverts what you consider to be too far from your own views, you're willing to see people, for example, impeached.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
As an afterthought, I'm increasingly delighted the UK doesn't have a written constitution for people to get absurdly hung-up about.
I think you should cease trying to wiggle out of your own words.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Now you try to make some distinction about "American Gun Culture" as if that is somehow completely separate from the rest of America. How is that possible. As of right now I do not own a gun, therefore I am not part of the "gun culture", and presumably in your mind a-ok. But if tomorrow I decide I want a gun, I am now part of the "gun culture", and deplorable beyond mention? Explain how that works.
And yes, I believe your statement about a triple homicide in Switzerland to cause you no concern for their gun laws, yet you have great concern for ours, to be truly troubling. There is no distinction. Murder is murder, and all murder is a monstrous act of a madman, simple as that. I will not back down from that. And that is no hyperbole.
Once again you show your lack of understanding of US law. US Senators take an oath of office to uphold the US Constitution. The US Constitution clearly states via the 2nd Amendment that it's citizens have the right to bear arms. Therefore, for a Senator to want to circumvent the Constitution is a clear violation of their oath of office, an impeachable offence. She can say what she wants, she can believe what she wants, but to introduce legislation such as she has/will (not sure of the timing) is a violation of her sworn oath.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
So once again I'll say it. If she would simply be "courageous" as you claim, and propose a Constitutional Amendment, I would have no problem with her stand. I would disagree, but I would respect her.
Rubbish of the highest order. In no sense am I trying to wriggle out of anything I've said.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Cultures are to do with attitudes and viewpoints, not just actual ownership. I would genuinely have thought you'd be able to recognise the distinction.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
In which case, may I suggest you reset your moral compass?Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
I note you still haven't apologised for the assertion that I dislike all Americans, by the way. It was a low thing to say, though hardly atypical. In recent years, the slightest criticism of individual aspects of, say, US foreign policy have often precipitated excessive accusations from some quarters of 'anti-Americanism'. The same is true here. So, please apologise.
An attitude that, I say again, borders on paranoia.Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
The degree to which your constitution is sacrosanct will, it's true, always baffle an outsider. In this respect, it holds policy-making back.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Now over 1000 posts and to be honest, it seems that many of the pro gun crowd and responsibly gun owners are much more open to compromise than those opposing guns. If responsible gun ownership and tough laws (that are enforced) aren't enough it's clear that people really don't want a solution... unless it is there solution.
As stated many times, the solution used in Europe won't be used here in the US. We may as well discuss removing alcohol from all the world because some would like that and think it's the best solution.
That is PRECISELY what the Constitution was written to do, hold back policy-making. Perhaps you would be better served speaking only of your own laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Lugar got punked in his 2012 bid for re-election and isn't even part of the 113th Congress. BTW the entire population of Indiana is 6.5 million, over one million less residents including unregistererd voters, felons that are prohibited from voting, and those of an age too young to vote than Feinstein received from the reseidents of "The Great State of California". In the here and now the constituency that is made up of residents in The Great State of Indiana decided he bro sucks. 61%-39%Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uM01v_vVnbg
I try to be civil, but my patience wears thin. Your feelings were hurt when I say that you dislike Americans, and I am supposed to apologize for that, yet you continue to call me and others paranoid, ignorant, fearful, and worse? You like to point out the irony in other people's statements, yet you do not see it in your own.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Oh yes, yes, you were only referring to "certain people", "specific circumstances", on and on. We get it, you only dislike those you disagree with. And yet your statements about "culture" and the Swiss murders pretty much damn all Americans for having a "bad culture", basically saying Americans can't be trusted, yet the Swiss can.
So your point is that since Feinstein is from a larger state, and therefore has a larger voting pool, that she is somehow "better"??????Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Giacomo Rappaccini
I am well aware of this fact, and would say that I am certainly not in favour of policy-making for the sake of it. On occasion, though, changes are required. This, in my view, is one such occasion.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Then you favor an Amendment to be drafted and voted on. Fine. I would/will oppose such a measure, but that is how our system is set up.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
When our Founders set up the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, they did not do it for all eternity. They KNEW they would make mistakes, so they set up ways to correct them. They did set up the system to be difficult on purpose to stop emotional knee-jerk reactions and mob rule from becoming the law of the land. They included the Bill of Rights on purpose as well. They wanted it to be very difficult for future generations to be able to strip us of our right of free speech, the bearing of arms, the right to have a jury trial, to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and all the rest. They did this in direct response to those rights being violated by the very government you praise for having the freedom to "policy-make".
You know, that's the nice thing about living here. If you did, no one would force you to do any of those things. The reverse apples to those who wish to own them.Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
You confuse policy making with the flavor of the day. And then, only if it's YOUR favorite flavor.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
That's what you do all the time. Then, when called on it, say that's not what you truly meant and you really meant something else.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
I'm sure you misspoke (mistyped?). You actually meant "disingenuous" and not "courageous".Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Folks, speaking as a moderator, can I ask you to take care with the personal comments.
I give up.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
There is no irony in my statements whatsoever. I believe there to be at least a degree of paranoia and fear underlying the desire for gun ownership. Everything I have read in this discussion has borne this out. However, nothing that I have written has been in any sense anti-American. I've been critical of one aspect of your country's laws — that's all. This is also, I'd underline, a matter of my opinion. By contrast, it is a fact that I am in no-sense anti-American. I think I'd know this better than you. So, enough of the 'they're all against us and we don't care' whining. An apology is due. I would never dislike an entire nation.
Hilarious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
I think I know the sense and meaning of my words better than do you, with respect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter