How Would You Change The Constitution

[Moby]

Frank in his hatred for American freedoms thinks a flag made in China is more important then the set of ideas that it stands for. The only thing that keeps us from becoming a fascist dictatorship like Saddam's Iraq is our Constitution but so many want to throw it away thinking that our leaders want to protect us.

Would you change it and how?

[moonman]

Repeal the 2nd Amendment. Ban guns except for the purpose of hunting and target shooting.

Eliminate the ceremonial and executive duties of the President by creating an office of the Governor or Chancellor General.

[Islam Rocks!]

Repeal the 2nd Amendment. Ban guns except for the purpose of hunting and target shooting.

Eliminate the ceremonial and executive duties of the President by creating an office of the Governor or Chancellor General.
Adolph is that you comming back from the grave?

Moonbatman, that was one of the first things Hitler did when they made him "Chancellor" was to ban guns except for hunting and target practice!!!

[mwillman]

It doesnt matter what the constitution says people will define it the way that best fits there desires for the society.

There is no reason to repeal the 2nd amendment if we just realize that most gun owners are not milltia and therefore are not protected by it.

If anything a better definition of the limits of the executive branch would at least keep the neocons from trying to create a presidential kingship.

[radioguy]

Repeal the 2nd Amendment. Ban guns except for the purpose of hunting and target shooting.

That is a totally ridiculous suggestion. If you did that, then the only people that would have them are the police and the criminals. You would render the law abiding public defenseless, and invite criminals to invade and rob any home, car or business of their choosing, because they would no longer have to fear for their safety.

I wish there were no guns in American society today. The fact is though, there are millions of them around and the majority aren't registered, so there's no way authorities could find and collect them. Therefore, all the legal gun owners that don't use them to commit crimes, have them taken away, while the criminals and gang-bangers get to keep theirs.

In my opinion, America should have banned guns 100 to 150 years ago, then we wouldn't be this dilemma today. But you can't turn back the clock.

I will say this though, I am for stricter policies on guns being registered and holding those who choose to own one, more accountable. What I mean is, I think there should be stricter laws concerning people owning or possessing unregisters hand guns, along with laws requiring gun owners to have to produce and re-register that weapon every year. Again, I think failing to re-register and/or produce that weapon yearly, should result in very harsh legal consequences.

I also believe that nobody should be allowed to walk into a store, purchase a gun, and walk out with it. I think all guns should be purchased, as well as manufactured, by pre-paid order only. No gun store could have any functioning guns available in stock for resale at all, and every gun manufactures would be required to have a paid order in hand for every weapon it is producing.

I really think it's possible to significantly reduce the number of people who are shot with handguns every year in the US, but it's going to require some radical changes being made and will take so time before any results will be seen. Since we don't have a magic wand we can wave to make all the guns in America disappear, the Idea of making guns illegal for the public to own and posses, will just serve to empower criminals, further endanger the public, and simply isn't a rational solution to the problem.

[Jesse Hemingway]

I personally think we should all be outfitted like those two guys in Los Angeles a few years back that kept the Los Angeles police force naturalized for hours before they took them out. I have no faith in this government and as long as there are nut cases running the government like now I want to make sure I have the opportunity along with the enjoyment in protecting my rights. What do you think I am going to say these people at least let 9/11 happen I do not trust any of them. :lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:

The Constitution goes back to where it was before bush snuck in back in 12/12/2000

[Yirmeyahu]

I'm with radioguy on the second amendment.

There are quite a few flaws in the Constitution. For starters, the checks and balances on each branch are weak and exploitable.

Add a clause making the non-delegation principle completely unambiguous.

Repeal the 16th amendment.

Specify that the people, through the Congress, are to interpret the laws that the people, through the Congress, have legislated, rather than laws being interpreted by an executive-appointed judiciary.

Those are a few things I would propose for starters.

[disrupter]

I support the 2nd amendment too.
Islam Rocks is correct, that is exactly what Hitler's first acts was. Rounding up all registered guns owned by citizens.
the first move of a police state is to neuter all the people.
To subdue their independent thinking, or reign it in by silencing voices.
Social pressures have been used very recently to do that.
But in the long run, since a police state is inherently parasitic it simply destroys the nation it attempts to suck life blood from.
It is all just so stupid.
Police states ALWAYS become economic basket cases, that is why their ONLY option is foreign aggression.
Police states aren't self sufficient.
They are created by lazy, cynical people who are so stupid, crime is their only 'creative' notion.
Fascists are losers. Lazy, cynical losers.

What i think i would do is clean up the whole income tax thing.
Have an open debate about it, then hold a national referendum on it.
If people self impose the individual employment income tax, then we would keep it, if they rejected it in an honest referendum then it is gone. We got by for over a century without it, i think if we get profiteering corporations to begin to pay their fair share again we could live without it again.

I am not sure anything else in the constitution is terribly wrong.

The problem is an outlaw executive branch calling it irrelevant, or in GWB's own words, 'just a goddamned piece of paper'.
He is another nut case like Frankg.
A bright colored rag means more than a guiding intellectual artifact, based on people who had experience with tyrannical & bad governments.

The problem is activist right wing judges who were appointed by the unelected war criminal Bush.

[Moby]

I don't like that guns are every where but as RG mentions that are out there in vast amounts. Sure we're far more violent then our neighbors but the guns are already there.

People need the right to own them but also need to responsible for them.

[mwillman]

I dont have a problem with people owning Guns, What I have a problem with is all the loop holes that allow people to buy guns without being licensed.

I also think guns like assault rifles arnt something that should be sold to the masses. There is no need for automatic weapons or weapons that are easily made automatic with nothing more then a easy to get kit sold to the public.

[Bill]

We'd have to add an amendment to the constitution to do away with the electoral college.

That would be the most important change I would support.

Otherwise, no changes I can think of.

Equal rights amendment? I wouldn't vote against it.

[radioguy]

We'd have to add an amendment to the constitution to do away with the electoral college.

That would be the most important change I would support.

Good one... I'd support that also.

[Gazza]

There seems to be a problem with the dcjunkies website so don't logout or you won't get back in again.

Unless I've picked up a nasty BHO, it looks like someone hacked the software and redirected the index (home) page.

It redirects to... http://www.236.com/blog/w/sean_carma...ember_2674.php

You can still get to the forums, but you will have to go through another page..

I used this one...

http://www.dcjunkies.com/forumdisplay.php?f=3

[Bill]

I use this url in my bookmarks so that I never see the index page.

http://www.dcjunkies.com/search.php?do=getnew

This shows the "NEW" posts in all the forums at once.

That redirect is odd - takes you to an anto-rove page. I suspect some kind of redirect embedded in one of the feeds.

I've contacted Tommy, he controls the index page.

[Yirmeyahu]

To be honest, I've never understood the electoral college. Anyone care to explain it?

[Moby]

To be honest, I've never understood the electoral college. Anyone care to explain it?
It's really a very scary thing when you read the laws behind it. Originally it was designed so that no candidate could win an election by focusing on major population centers or rigging the elections in a certain part of the country. So if for some reason every voter in Florida showed up and voted for 1 candidate instead of giving that candidate 10s of millions of votes they would only get 27 votes. That's all the state has.

The idea is that a state gets a certain number of electors (votes). the electors are actual people that are on the honor system. If state citizens elect a candidate then the electors are supposed to cast their votes for the person chosen by the people.

However, that's not always the case. More then 100 times electors have chosen to ignore the will of the people and cast a vote for someone else. In most states it's legal to cast your vote for someone else. I think only one state has the ability to actually cancel the vote but they don't have the right to change it.

In reality people don't vote for the President. Each state runs an election based on the laws set forth by that state government. Then the electors go and cast votes. That's why there was the big stink in FL. The election laws were changed by a President's brother shortly before the 2000 election and it was those laws that put him in office. Not the will of the people.

[Yirmeyahu]

Thanks, SirMoby. A few more questions. So who are the electors? And doesn't that make a popular vote meaningless, if only the electoral vote counts?

[Moby]

Thanks, SirMoby. A few more questions. So who are the electors? And doesn't that make a popular vote meaningless, if only the electoral vote counts?
Each state chooses them by different methods. Sometimes it's a popular vote done when voting for the President. Sometimes the political parties elect them.

They are usually people with strong political ties but the Constitution states that they electors can't hold office. They can be purchased, bribed and influenced after a citizen vote and before they cast their vote depending on the state laws.

Majority vote has nothing to do with a Presidential election. Anyone that brings up majority rule in America is full of shit.

That is why we are The Republic of The United States Of America as we are not a democracy at the federal level. We are a group of separate states. States are usually governed by majority vote but the President does NOT need to have a majority to win.

George W. Bush was the latest President appointed into office without winning the popular vote and the only one in 100+ years. He is also the most unpopular President and won his 2nd term by the smallest margin of any 2 time President.

[kres24GT]

The Constitution is already irrelevant. It is for a large part ignored by everyone in Washington.

[Yirmeyahu]

Another change I would make, in addition to the ones I mentioned earlier, would be to strengthen existing checks against too strong a federal government and to protect the sovereignty and rights of the state republics.

[kres24GT]

Another change I would make, in addition to the ones I mentioned earlier, would be to strengthen existing checks against too strong a federal government and to protect the sovereignty and rights of the state republics.


LMAO...... hilarious, you mean like the oft ignored 10th amendment.

[moonman]

Typical kneejerk reactions form the whacko squad.LImit the use of guns for hunting and sport is what Hitler did. Another quotes a bumper sticker, Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have them.

First of all, 230 years of history has proven that broad circulation of guns don't protect the public from unconstitutional acts of the gubment. Our Courts and defense department protect the public from attacks on our liberty from whatever source.

Secondly, gun ownership wether acquired to assist in the commission of a crime or for protection from crime is a fear based acquisition. I am especially concerned for law abiding citizens who acquire guns for protection. In the vast majority of instances, it is the law abiding citizen who is the one eventually harmed.

Criminals will use other means if guns are not available, for the most part because most criminals are cowards. Far less harm will occur if they must resort to sticks, stones and bully tactics.

I expected a majority would be against repealing the 2nd Amendment on this board. Let's poll this one again after we're well into the Greater Depression and what's left of the middle class is experiencing a rash of home invasions, car jackings, rapes, roberies of all kinds all becasue guns are easily obtainable.

Another kneejerk expression is that Republicans are Democrats who've been mugged. when there are roving gangs of gun toting 'think they're toughs' roaming your neighborhood, as there were in Orleans after Katrina, I suspect each of you will have a much different attitude about guns.

[disrupter]

The banned the sale of assault weapons in my city,
but the criminals were already dealing illegally in them before the law was even suggested.

All it did was impede law abiding citizens from owning them.

I guess i would like to see the electorial college eliminated.
The only question is, is a majority required?
What about a three candidate race? runoff election or do you just take the largest, possibly non-majority vote?

I would need to see how the details were handled before i immediately discarded the electorial college.

[Moby]

The banned the sale of assault weapons in my city,
but the criminals were already dealing illegally in them before the law was even suggested.

All it did was impede law abiding citizens from owning them.

Why would a law abiding citizen need an assault weapon?

[radioguy]

Why would a law abiding citizen need an assault weapon?

They wouldn't need one... A law abiding citizen would only need a gun for personal protection against intrusions and physical assaults, therefore they would need nothing more than a handgun.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

They wouldn't need one... A law abiding citizen would only need a gun for personal protection against intrusions and physical assaults, therefore they would need nothing more than a handgun.

Kind of depends on the neighborhood the law abiding citizen lives in. If the thugs have assault weapons, it would make a person think that for their protection they too should have them.


Lady Mod

[mwillman]

Hell

In that case why dont we all walk around armed to the teeth. We should bring back dueling and hangings. Hell, why not gladitorial games while we're at it.

If you bother to look at the stats, Most violent crime is within the family. People talk about self defense then kill thier parents or children or spouse.

Do you know how many times out of a hundred guns are accually used for valid self defense, If its one I would be suprised. My point is all the people that think a gun is going to help them are really just letting thier fears define thier opinions.

[disrupter]

When the laws get twisted by Washington crooks, who knows WHO will be categorized as a 'criminal'.

I have lived all my life without societies support.
I am gay.
For me it is not at all that unbelievable that people will attack minorities purely for bigoted & hateful reasons. The ability to own a weapon doesn't seem unreasonable to me. A weapon that can deal with larger group of lawless rioters or vigilantes. Mob violence.

The real reasons is of course if society suffers a complete breakdown.
There are no guarantees.
If we ever headed into that i would feel much better doing so with reasonably advanced arms.

I am still outside of society's acceptance.
The one group their arbitrarily deny equal rights are gay people.
Knowing i could mow any small group of people who were beyond reason seems reasonable to me.

Additionally with this government already infringing civil rights, the ability of a group of citizens to seriously respond to an outlaw government is a good insurance policy. An insurance policy for government officials & their goons to keep their act in line.

At least some kind of balance, however uneven, of power between government & citizens.

[Yirmeyahu]

LMAO...... hilarious, you mean like the oft ignored 10th amendment.

Precisely.

[Yirmeyahu]

First of all, 230 years of history has proven that broad circulation of guns don't protect the public from unconstitutional acts of the gubment. Our Courts and defense department protect the public from attacks on our liberty from whatever source.

Well, if you're so knowledgable of the most recent 230 years of history, you would know that the assertion that government courts and war departments don't protect the people from attacks on liberty and are, to the contrary, very often the source of said attacks.

Secondly, gun ownership wether acquired to assist in the commission of a crime or for protection from crime is a fear based acquisition. I am especially concerned for law abiding citizens who acquire guns for protection. In the vast majority of instances, it is the law abiding citizen who is the one eventually harmed.

Nobody has to be harmed. Just don't break into my house and threaten harm to me or my family and I won't shoot you.

Criminals will use other means if guns are not available, for the most part because most criminals are cowards. Far less harm will occur if they must resort to sticks, stones and bully tactics.

Criminals will have guns. Such laws as you propose would only take guns out of the hands of law abiding people. The result would be a vastly expanded black market.

I expected a majority would be against repealing the 2nd Amendment on this board. Let's poll this one again after we're well into the Greater Depression and what's left of the middle class is experiencing a rash of home invasions, car jackings, rapes, roberies of all kinds all becasue guns are easily obtainable.

The criminals responsible for such crimes might think twice if they knew their intended victims owned a gun.

Why would a law abiding citizen need an assault weapon?

He or she wouldn't. But why prevent any law abiding citizen from owning one? If a gun enthusiast wants to practice on the firing range with an assault rifle, more power to him or her.

[moonman]

To all those who wouldn't repeal the 2nd amendment, would you, in the alternative, support laws that would provide for a penalty of life without any possiblity of parole for using a gun during the commission of a crime?

[Jesse Hemingway]

Bottom line is that as an American it not my duty to believe anything an elected representive says, it is my duty as an American to make the elected representive prove everything they say is true. They are our public servents it is our duty to make them serve to our standards not the other way around.

Just remember who was paying blackwater in New Orleans for disarming Americans that is why we can not waiver on the 2nd. That was a wake up call to everyone that sombody is asking for serious trouble.:disbelief: :disbelief: :disbelief:

[Yirmeyahu]

To all those who wouldn't repeal the 2nd amendment, would you, in the alternative, support laws that would provide for a penalty of life without any possiblity of parole for using a gun during the commission of a crime?

I would certainly support laws which would inflict harsher penalties for crimes committed with firearms. As to the nature of those laws, it would require research, studies, and further pondering both on my part and on the part of the legislators before I could agree to anything specific.

[Moby]

To all those who wouldn't repeal the 2nd amendment, would you, in the alternative, support laws that would provide for a penalty of life without any possiblity of parole for using a gun during the commission of a crime?
No and the reason is because most people that carry one do it for the fear factor. If they're going to spend life in jail any way then they might as well kill all the witnesses.

I would make a huge penalty if a gun that someone purchased was later used in a crime. Sure the gun was probably stolen but then the gun was probably not protected very well.

I would also increase gun turn in fees.

Make it profitable to get rid of your stolen gun.
Make it a crime to not protect your gun.
Make it a crime to carry a gun in an illegal manner.

[disrupter]

White collar [government] crime probably creates more economic devastation.

I think as long as it wasn't a crime of survival, like stealing needed food or medicine, then commission of a crime with a firearm could/should carry a stiff jail term.

Meanwhile we should stop jailing people for making personal choices about ingesting chemicals.
In a capitalist society your body is your own, not some hysterical moralistic busybody's.
If your body is not your own, you are state property, making this explicitly a communist country.

do we really have the resources to expend on people's hysterical pseudo-moral bigotry?

If we do we are too rich & face only economic decline.

[moonman]

No and the reason is because most people that carry one do it for the fear factor. If they're going to spend life in jail any way then they might as well kill all the witnesses.

I would make a huge penalty if a gun that someone purchased was later used in a crime. Sure the gun was probably stolen but then the gun was probably not protected very well.

I would also increase gun turn in fees.

Make it profitable to get rid of your stolen gun.
Make it a crime to not protect your gun.
Make it a crime to carry a gun in an illegal manner.

We agree that the primary motivation for carrying a gun is fear.

Witnesses, that is people, are really not the best evidence. So in terms of getting a conviction it doesn't bother me that a criminal kills my potential witnesses. Gimme forensics over people everytime. Gimme a good circumstantial case, like Scott Peterson over people everytime.

I'm not sure I agree with making it profitable to turn in a stolen gun. Duh. Hmm what to do, dumpster dive for recyclables or go steal guns and turn 'em in?