Rob Henderson
Banned
I wouldn't have to if he would stay on the topic in the first place. Since he's such a stickler for SOME of the rules.
What?I used to be able to understnd profound statements like this, but then I quit using.
I agree in part. People love to think that the rules apply to everyone but them, because they're somehow special. But just because some people won't obey them doesn't mean they shouldn't be in place.Wasnt comparing to a speeding ticket was more or less saying that what Americans express as morals and what they actually do are widely different.
Further more since gun registration is only voluntary there is a lot of unaccounted for weapons which would make it rather hard for the gov't to round them up.
This country was founded on turning against its government, nothing is out of the realm of possibility.
Agree, except for the last sentence. I'm not sure how a generic statement based on your statement which made absolutely no sense in the context of the page could merit such a response.Here in the US, Congress can propose an amendment to the Constitution and with a 2/3rds majority vote send the proposed amendment to all the States. When they receive approval from 3/4s of the states the amendment can become law.
As an example: Congress originally proposed what became the 27th Amendment (having to do with timing of congressional pay raises), at the same time as what became the Bill of Rights (1st Ten amendments).
It was not ratified until 3/4s of the states approved it in 1992.
A state can also propose an amendment and when it has gained approval from 3/4s of all the states it can be sent to the US Congress for mandatory addition to the Constitution.
So it should be clear that the Congress, by itself, cannot amend the US Constitution.
Rob since you are moderating I will try and stay on topic.
BTW: You don't moderate anything......ain't tellin you again.
I didn't ask for an explanation. You know how to report posts.
I'm still confused. How can that post be considered trying to be a moderator? He didn't say "get on topic or else" just a response to a comment suggesting he was on some sort of drug.Please use the "Report Post" button
We (the staff) have no chance to read through all new posts/threads in here so if you find any posts you believe violates any of the forum rules then use the "report post" buttonand we'll deal with it as soon as we're online (if we believe it violates any rules).
If you choose not to use that button then you can't blame us for not dealing with offensive etc. posts/threads since it's a good chance that we don't know about it at all.
Threads/posts that are not reported rarely gets any attention from us since we assume that no members finds it/them offensive.
The only exceptions here are posts we clearly see that violates the forum rules.
But THIS is attempting to be a moderator:Get back with me when you want to discuss the subject instead of trolling.
BTW, way to stay on the topic! :thumb:
What?
I'm still confused. How can that post be considered trying to be a moderator? He didn't say "get on topic or else" just a response to a comment suggesting he was on some sort of drug.
And what good does the report post button do if you don't think it violates the rules? Based on previous responses, the following is not attempting to be a moderator:
But THIS is attempting to be a moderator:
Perhaps now you understand my confusion, or at least my mistrust in reporting posts?
From my previous experience... I don't see that you or any other moderator on this forum would have done anything short of him insulting my dead great-grandfather... Oh wait... He's done that too...I didn't ask for an explanation. You know how to report posts.
Americans talk a lot of trash, but I highly doubt the government would have TOO much trouble if they really wanted to take our guns away.
Americans talk a lot of trash, but I highly doubt the government would have TOO much trouble if they really wanted to take our guns away.
Yeah. It takes us back to the whole thing about registering firearms... But my thinking on the situation is that if it ever got to the point where the government wanted or needed to take away our guns completely, we would be at the point where we needed to overthrow the system ANYWAY.
I think I understand and agree with what you're trying to say. And I do agree. But disagreement is no reason to compare the supporters of the contrasting opinion to druggies or mental patients.I think I speak for a lot of folks when I say: I'll agree with you when I agree with you.
There will always be those who would keep their guns, by not registering, purchasing illegally, etc. But for the vast majority of the country, it wouldn't be hard. I never said they would go quietly... There would certainly be a fight, but it wouldn't be much of one.
I had a slightly different idea when I posted that... What I meant by overthrowing the system is that Americans would see it coming and switch the tracks before we got to that point... We would never let the government take our guns COMPLETELY. It would never get that bad. The "guns going quietly" theory is just that... A theory. I'd bet the farm it never got that bad.
I don't really know... There are several variations that could occur. That's why it's hypothetical.In this presently hypothetical fight who would come for the guns?
Are you that straightforward and unable to think outside the box? If the American government were really endangering our 2nd Amendment rights, then it would be time for a change in the government. To cause the downfall or defeat of those who would take away our guns. Hence the phrase "overthrowing the system." Care to take another stab at it?Sorta what the "Gun Nuts' are doing now? Protesting to their Legislatures, going to the US Supreme Court like DC vs Heller? This seems like operating within the system.
"Overthrowing the System" means something entirely different to me and Merriam Webster.
overthrow
Pronunciation:\ˌō-vər-ˈthrō\
Function:transitive verb Inflected Form(s) over·threw \-ˈthrü\ ; over·thrown \-ˈthrōn\ ; over·throw·ingDate:14th century1 : overturn, upset
2 : to cause the downfall of : bring down, defeat
3 : to throw a ball over or past (as a base or a receiver)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/overthrow
"Overthrowing the System" kind of rules out the ball throwing usage
What is there that says an amendment cannot be "Struck off" or "re amended". after all it is only an amendment which implies that it is only a change or addition to an existing understanding.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dictionary: a·mend·ment (ə-mĕnd'mənt)
n.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- The act of changing for the better; improvement: “Society may sometimes show signs of repentance and amendment” (George G. Coulton).
- A correction or alteration, as in a manuscript.
- The process of formally altering or adding to a document or record.
- A statement of such an alteration or addition: The 19th Amendment to the Constitution gave women the right to vote.
What everybody is very conveniently missing is that all Laws can be changed or further amended if the need or desire arises.
Even Constitutions are not immutable.
I would like to see some answers to Bropous's question as to what would you do if given 24 hours to comply with a change in the gun laws. Where would we stand regarding all this high flying talk of Defence of the constitution.
Personally I feel that most would comply, many would break the law, and it would only be the occasional nutter who would defend his "rights" to the death.
Americans talk a lot of trash, but I highly doubt the government would have TOO much trouble if they really wanted to take our guns away.
Yeah. It takes us back to the whole thing about registering firearms... But my thinking on the situation is that if it ever got to the point where the government wanted or needed to take away our guns completely, we would be at the point where we needed to overthrow the system ANYWAY.
There will always be those who would keep their guns, by not registering, purchasing illegally, etc. But for the vast majority of the country, it wouldn't be hard. I never said they would go quietly... There would certainly be a fight, but it wouldn't be much of one.
I had a slightly different idea when I posted that... What I meant by overthrowing the system is that Americans would see it coming and switch the tracks before we got to that point... We would never let the government take our guns COMPLETELY. It would never get that bad. The "guns going quietly" theory is just that... A theory. I'd bet the farm it never got that bad.
If I was given 24 hours to comply with gun laws, my past statement STILL holds, They can have all my guns, I'll leave them to them in my will.
THATS how much I'll comply with ANY law that prevents me from defending my family form harm in my own house.
*sigh* Very good Chukpike... It only took you 10 pages to figure it out.
I think there is no way that Americans (all Americans) would just roll over and die when it came to their guns, but I don't know that they would take it to the extreme of physical violence. I meant that they would fight politically.
The point I was trying to make when I said "I doubt the government would have too much trouble if they really wanted to take our guns away." was that if it DID come down to physical altercations, the people then WOULD give up their weapons. As illustrated PERFECTLY by wolfen in his above post.
Get it? Got it? Doubt it.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.