If you could make a new amendment to the constitution what would it be??

[kubedawg]

How about I make a scene, and talk to the manager right then and there? If I passively go somewhere else, that's not solving the problem on the consumer's end. Yeah, maybe for myself, I don't have to worry about it anymore because I'm at another restaurant, although I have to pay more for gas, and waste more time to get where I needed to go. But for the customer in general who goes there who has to put up with that, and to have them go to the same place I now go, which is 5 miles away, wasting more time and more gas. The problem isn't with the consumer. It's like shitting in the sand and then kicking more sand over it to cover it up. It doesn't solve the problem, it just covers it up, making more people upset. I mean, if the store owner was fine that they are losing busines, we then, fine. By all means, go out of business, but by starting at the source, we can look at this in a positive way and teach our new citizens how to speak English.

I know some people might say, well that's easy for you to say, you don't have to learn English, and I'm very fortunate I fluently know English, but all I'm trying to do is get a head start so people who come here won't have to deal with some of the bs involved with the language barrier. Some people from foreign countries might not want to learn English, that's fine, they can go to another restaurant, I mean country.

[brien]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint For you, yes, it is a good thing I'm not in charge, but I'd be happier if I was. No, 230 years of tradition and ideology and philosophy, and propaganda and anachronism and paranoia, do not carry a lot of wieght with me against what I consider to be modern reality. I would keep the First Amendment because I think it is still useful and valuable; I do not think the 2nd Amendment is. But I know you and I (and most other people on here) simply disagree about that, so I won't try to argue for it. Feel free to consider me wrong. .

CS: I don't consider you wrong, merely misguided. The fact that you would toss out, in a cavalier manner, historical ideology and philosophy that has made this nation great today, is a shame.

[Fonceai]

The 2nd Amendment hasn't really been necessary since the end of the Civil War. That was the last time there was violent conflict on American soil.

Before an Air Force. Before a heavily mobile military.

To take one side on this issue...

If guns are illegal and only in the hands of law enforcement, then those who carry guns are criminals. If those carrying guns are already criminals, and they were to kill someone who didn't have a chance to defend themself, their crime would carry a much heavier sentence.

Domestic defense should be handled by local law enforcement up to the military.

There is no need for citizens to be armed.

[brien]

Quote by: Fonceai . There is no need for citizens to be armed.

I yi yi. :rolleyes: Who is going to protect you when you are assaulted by the criminals who have guns? No one. You will be either dead or cruelly disabled for life.

I will never agree to outsource my own protection to a group(the police) that merely cleans up the mess.

Sorry not for me. NEVER

[Fonceai]

Like I wrote, that's only one side of the argument. One that you can argue quite well, but since it is so one-sided, it's vulnerable to circumstancial What-Ifs.

[underbear1]

After 2009 no candidate bearing the surname Bush, or directly related to George H. Bush can run for public office.

[brien]

Quote by: Fonceai Like I wrote, that's only one side of the argument. One that you can argue quite well, but since it is so one-sided, it's vulnerable to circumstancial What-Ifs.

If guns are illegal and only in the hands of law enforcement

This is impossible.

[brien]

Quote by: underbear1 After 2009 no candidate bearing the surname Bush, or directly related to George H. Bush can run for public office.

Hey underbear, you seem like a good guy so why would you squander your amendment on such a wish? I think the voters have got the message and they will grant your wish without an amendment..

Willing to reconsider here?

[Fonceai]

Not impossible, I just neglected to be specific.

My fault.

Exceptions which is-- not loaded; 1. and in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack which is in a motor vehicle; 2. by an individual for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone; 3. by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual; 4. by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity; 5. or that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school premises is authorized by school authorities.

Notice that I pasted just the exceptions, did a line break at the semi-colons, and numbered them. First, all guns must not be loaded. The rest of them exist as OR conditions.

1. Locked away, OR

2. For use in a school program. A good example of this is a vocational class in gun repair, or weapons with firing pins removed for ROTC drill, OR

3. Armed contractors. This is usually a security service for the school (think ritzy private schools) or when there is another building considered part of the school zone that has armed security. Schools on military bases are also an example of this, OR

4. Police officers on-duty. Also, for schools on military bases, armed personnel, OR

5. Crossing school grounds to go hunting.

Number 4 means that it IS possible.

[brien]

Quote by: Fonceai Not impossible, I just neglected to be specific. My fault. Notice that I pasted just the exceptions, did a line break at the semi-colons, and numbered them. First, all guns must not be loaded. The rest of them exist as OR conditions. 1. Locked away, OR 2. For use in a school program. A good example of this is a vocational class in gun repair, or weapons with firing pins removed for ROTC drill, OR 3. Armed contractors. This is usually a security service for the school (think ritzy private schools) or when there is another building considered part of the school zone that has armed security. Schools on military bases are also an example of this, OR 4. Police officers on-duty. Also, for schools on military bases, armed personnel, OR 5. Crossing school grounds to go hunting. Number 4 means that it IS possible.

You neglected to list my historical right to carry self protection. I carry legally. I will carry illegally if the law make me a outlaw. And I would also postulate that millions of other Americans who legally own firearms would be willing to break the law if you, or any other anti gunners, would take away our right to self protection.

Good move, make criminals out of millions of Americans and threaten jail time for otherwise lawful citizens. Get ready for a all out criminal assault on lawful citizens by violent criminals because you won't ever have enough jails to incarcerate us all. Then you will face the wrath of violent criminals who you can't jail because of overcrowding. Good going boss. Better hire one policeman for every citizen. I yi yi:rolleyes:

If you think the cops will protect you, better think again. The statistics would prove to you otherwise.

[Fonceai]

Which statistics? I'm seeing nothing but a Slippery Slope.

[brien]

Quote by: Fonceai Which statistics? I'm seeing nothing but a Slippery Slope.

Do I really need to show you crime statistics that show you the amount of crime that is committed by violent criminals that happen because the cops can''t protect citizens. If the cops could protect citizens, then we wouldn't have the crime rate we have now, would we?

No thanks, I will depend upon myself to protect myself and let someone else call the cops when they have been violated by criminals. If the cops aren't busy with me, then they may get to you when someone attacks you. So you should support my right to carry, it just may save your life..

[Fonceai]

Then instead of supporting one person's opinion on the issue, I will add to it with part of my own.

The 2nd Amendment needs to go away, and a new Amendment is needed to address modern firearms issues.

I do think people should have the right to carry firearms, but I think the 2nd Amendment is outdated.

[underbear1]

Quote by: brien Hey underbear, you seem like a good guy so why would you squander your amendment on such a wish? I think the voters have got the message and they will grant your wish without an amendment.. Willing to reconsider here?

I already added equality of LGBT community amendment, and yes it seems unlikely America might ever have a Bush in office again,,,,,but why take chances.

[5010]

I think "taxation without representation" is lacking in the system. Here's an idea of a new amendment which probably needs more thought and fleshing out...

Create a new branch of legislature like the house but which can only draft the financial parts of bills. This branch would be called "the vault". The house would then be able to only draft the non-financial parts of bills. The new branch would be elected only by voters who are also federal income tax payors (the amount collected by the government including social security exceeds the amount returned including social security). Bills that include financial and non-financial elements must pass philosophically (in the house) and financially (in the"vault") before going to the senate. The house or vault may bypass the other branch if the bill doesn't include anything the other branch relates to. For example, a bill that specifies the official federal amphibian would bypass the vault. A bill that specifies changes to the budget of a department would bypass the house.

Now, I understand that abolishing the fed income tax would in effect abolish this branch of government, because there would no longer be a disparity between voter and tax payor. Fine.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: brien CS: I don't consider you wrong, merely misguided. The fact that you would toss out, in a cavalier manner, historical ideology and philosophy that has made this nation great today, is a shame.

I hear what you're saying, but (and I don't mean this at all in a hostile way), don't assume I'm cavalier about this; I've probably thought about the 2nd amendment as much as you have, barring the fact that I'm (I think) younger than you. The historical ideology that made this country great was precisely the ideology that required people to question their government and institutions; if we slavishly follow what was set down 230 years ago, we are not living up to the examples of our founding fathers. If we had been arguing about government 230 years ago, would you be arguing that we should keep with the centuries-long tradition of the monarchy that had transformed Great Britain from a minor outpost of the Roman Empire to the most powerful country in the world?
I don't think you're slavishly following the rules of the Constitution; I think you have considered them extremely carefully, and formed your own opinions on them. But so have I, and the fact that I disagree with some of them doesn't make me wrong, and the fact that I question them should not be sad. We need both of us to make this country work: the two sides of the debate, rather than all of us accepting the authority of an institution just because it is an institution.

[kubedawg]

Quote by: Fonceai If guns are illegal and only in the hands of law enforcement, then those who carry guns are criminals. If those carrying guns are already criminals, and they were to kill someone who didn't have a chance to defend themself, their crime would carry a much heavier sentence. Domestic defense should be handled by local law enforcement up to the military. There is no need for citizens to be armed.

Practically, removing guns from citizens will cause more harm. How can one trust the law to not be corrupt or criminals to stay out of one's grasp of a gun? If there is a war between the american people and our government, if it gets so out of hand, it comes to that, and this were put in force, it'd be suicide. You've heard the phrase, "Don't bring a knife to a gun war," I'm sure, but removing guns will just cause people to get more creative in their actions. There are thousands if not millions of ways to kill a person, or harm them, or harm or kill yourself, without using a gun. Therefore, it is not practical to remove guns from the society we live in. Just adding a more in depth part to the other side of this debate.

[Fonceai]

@kubedawg

Quote by: Fonceai, Post #53 Then instead of supporting one person's opinion on the issue, I will add to it with part of my own. The 2nd Amendment needs to go away, and a new Amendment is needed to address modern firearms issues. I do think people should have the right to carry firearms, but I think the 2nd Amendment is outdated.

I was arguing one side, but it's not what I believe.

What I quote above is more in-line with my opinion.