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.

I didn't ask for an explanation. You know how to report posts.

Originally Posted by Chukpike

I used to be able to understnd profound statements like this, but then I quit using.

What?

Originally Posted by Donkey

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Chukpike

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 03USMC

BTW: You don't moderate anything......ain't tellin you again.

Originally Posted by 03USMC

I didn't ask for an explanation. You know how to report posts.

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" button and 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.

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:

Get back with me when you want to discuss the subject instead of trolling.

But THIS is attempting to be a moderator:

BTW, way to stay on the topic!

Perhaps now you understand my confusion, or at least my mistrust in reporting posts?

Above means he doesn't want to talk about it unless it's constructive.

Below is just another "Off topic!!" type post done in reverse.

Originally Posted by The Other Guy

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?

I'll tell you what. You disagree you take it up with Redleg.

What you don't do is challenge a moderator in an open forum.

Got it?

Originally Posted by 03USMC

I didn't ask for an explanation. You know how to report 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...






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.

Originally Posted by Rob Henderson

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.

I wouldn't rule this one out at all.
But my bet is that a lot of folks would still hang onto their weapons privately. Homemmade suppressors would probably become the rage and black market ammo might be the in thing.

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.

It certainly would be decision time for Americans. And this time it won't be about ballots.

Originally Posted by Rob Henderson

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.

Originally Posted by Rob Henderson

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.

So which is it?

Guns will go quietly as Rob says.

Or there will be a rebellion as Rob says.

Rob has found the answer! He has pretty much covered the bases on this one.

I for one would have to say I agree with him on at least one of his statements.