What is Wrong with America?
We just had an outlaw neighborhood watch gunslinger and now we have this so-called police chief spewing profanity and exhibiting violent hostilities with the exhibition of his gun show demonstrations.
Where is this blood lust coming from. After watching this guy's video do you really want this police chief in your local elementary school giving instructions to your children?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/2 … 43921.html
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/01/us/pennsl … index.htmlHe's just making up for a small penis.
You Americans do have a problem don't you? Blaming everyone else for the a situation created a few hundred years ago by a group of men who saw it nessessary for individuals to defend themselves.
Now with the onslaught of criminality some want to see that right taken away others want to see it enforced.
Blaming god or the politicians for the inability of humans to feel safe with or without guns is madness and will never solve the problems of gun ownership.
Surprise surprise, right-wingers love war and violence and want more of it. Does it really surprise anyone that the 2nd Amendment is the only one they want to protect?
What you're said does gives one something to think about.
Are you serious? This is your deep thought about conservatives?
We value other amendments too and despise it when people say that our constitution is a "living, breathing document." You hear us defend the second amendment the most, because it's the amendment that is most under fire from liberals who think they are wiser than the founding fathers.
Conservatives despise war too, and many of them have been more outspoken about foreign entanglements than liberals. If you would like to begin a historical debate on this topic, I'd be happy to do so."We value other amendments too and despise it when people say that our constitution is a 'living, breathing document.'"
That's because (many) conservatives don't like to hear the truth.
The Constitution is absolutely a living document: the founders deliberately built it that way! There are rules for changing the Constitution right there in the Constitution itself!
Now, the framers, being pretty sharp guys, deliberately made it really really hard to change the Constitution, so any time someone does want to change it, it's really really easy to stop them. Which means that any time the Constitution gets changed, a whole lot of folks have to agree that the change is an improvement.
This doesn't always work out (prohibition) but it usually does.Many liberals are arrogant enough to think that they are the only people who know the truth.
The constitution is not a living document. If you want to change it, add an amendment. You don't have enough support to add an amendment to change the constitution, do you? Thus, it doesn't seem like it's living or breathing too much right now. I guess you can appoint more liberal judges and try to amend the constitution judicially. Good luck with your living, breathing document.
By the way, there was a reason the founding fathers made it difficult to change the constitution. They felt that change would likely lead to an erosion of freedom. You are right when you say they were pretty sharp guys, a lot sharper than what we have had since. I'll take their wisdom, as ancient as it may seem, over any progressive's idea of what freedom should be.
Didn't the progressives of the time think up prohibition? The answer, by the way, is yes. Change for the sake of change isn't always a good plan. At the rate we're going, we're going to progress into bankruptcy. We've already progressed into a system that targets individuals through the IRS, listens to our calls, views our emails, watches us through the use of drones, and has a kill list with Americans on it. These policies were supported by the same liberals, republicans, and progressives who want to erode gun rights. Forgive me if I am skeptical of this "progress.""Many liberals are arrogant enough to think that they are the only people who know the truth."
In this case, you seem to be mistaking "thinking one knows the truth" with "actually knowing the truth."
"The constitution is not a living document. If you want to change it, add an amendment. "
Exactly. That's what it means to have a living document: it's not frozen in time; there's a process for amending it built right in.
The fact that the amendment process is difficult doesn't change that fact that the amendment process exists.
We can argue about whether a given proposed amendment would be a good idea or not, and I'm sure it would be an interesting discussion, but you cannot deny that it is possible to amend the Constitution, and that possibility makes the Constitution a living document.
Words mean things.I didn't know words mean things. . . Deep, deep thoughts.
It is possible to amend the constitution. I'll concede that much. Progressives like to call it a "living, breathing document" because of their desire to whimsically change it at will, thinking that their omnipotent wisdom exceeds that of Franklin, Jefferson, and Adams. Thank God the founding fathers knew that it should be difficult to change, much like the writing on granite. Granite is not living or breathing, and the constitution isn't either, metaphorically or literally.
Shall we progress right back into prohibition?"It is possible to amend the constitution. I'll concede that much. "
Good. Then you realize that it's a living document?
"Granite is not living or breathing, and the constitution isn't either, metaphorically or literally."
Oh. Apparently you don't. The cognitive dissonance in there must be deafening.
"thinking that their omnipotent wisdom exceeds that of Franklin, Jefferson, and Adams."
So, any changes to the Constitution made after Amendment 10 don't count as much? They're not as good as the rest of the Constitution?
So you don't think, say, the Thirteenth Amendment (Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.) is as good as the earlier bits? Like the bits that allow some citizens to buy and sell other people?
How about the 19th Amendment? The one that guarantees women the right to vote? That's another thing that the likes of Franklin, Jefferson*, and Adams didn't think was important. Should it be thrown out?
Sorry, but the framers didn't have a corner on the wisdom market and they knew it. The world has in fact moved on from the 18th century, as the framers knew that it would. That's why they established a process for updating/changing the Constitution: so that the document wouldn't be stuck in the 18th century when the rest of the world was living in the 21st. That's called foresight. And that's why the Constitution is a living document--because it can be adapted to the changing world.
Somehow, you can know that the Constitution was designed to be amended, but can still insist that it's not a living document. That's like saying your bike is a ten-speed but insisting that you can't shift gears. Wow.
*By the way, Jefferson did not participate in the Constitutional Convention: he was in France at the time, being an ambassador (and possibly getting it on with Ms. Hemings).First off, I didn't say Jefferson was at the convention. Go back, and you won't see me mention the Constitutional Convention once. You are either putting words in my mouth or making assumptions. I said, "Thank God the founding fathers knew that it should be difficult to change, much like the writing on granite. " I mentioned the founding fathers not the Constitutional Convention. Jefferson is widely considered a founding father. In 1973, Richard B. Morris, a famous historian, identified the following seven figures as the key Founding Fathers: John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington.
I said that the progressive mentality does not exceed the genius of Franklin, Adams, and Jefferson. As the primary author of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson's legacy as a significant figure and founding father are secure.
You are acting as an extremist when "interpreting" my clear statements. Remember, words have meaning? I have not said that the constitution cannot be amended. I have said that progressives, like you, try to amend it too often. That doesn't negate the value of some amendments but points out how ridiculous others are. I used prohibition as an example of progressives in action.
You say, "Sorry, but the framers didn't have a corner on the wisdom market and they knew it. The world has in fact moved on from the 18th century, as the framers knew that it would." Name one politician you would trust to improve upon the thoughts of Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, or any of the founding fathers. I can't name one, not one. Your entire statement seems to revolve around the fact that the constitution is full of old ideas. When the ideas are right, they don't need to be updated by progressives. Change for the sake of change isn't always a good plan."First off, I didn't say Jefferson was at the convention."
No, that' true. We were talking about the Constitution and the amendment thereof, and you said that progressives think "their omnipotent wisdom exceeds that of Franklin, Jefferson, and Adams."
That led me to believe you lumped Jefferson in with the others at the Constitutional Convention--you know, the ones who wrote the Constitution? Now you're saying that you know Jefferson didn't take part. That's good. I'm glad we're clear on that,
"As the primary author of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson's legacy as a significant figure and founding father are secure."
And slave-owner. Don't forget slave-owner. As were Madison and Washington. This is important to remember, because as brilliant as they were, they also got a couple really important things wrong. The slavery thing and the women's suffrage thing stand out in my mind.
"You are acting as an extremist when 'interpreting' my clear statements. Remember, words have meaning?"
Yeah, and you seem to like to pretend they mean different things when it suits you. In what way have I acted as an extremist in my posts today?
(Answer: in no way at all. You seem to be mistaking "extremist" to mean "dude on the internet who points out the inconsistencies in your arguments.")
"I have not said that the constitution cannot be amended. "
Right, but then you turned right around and said, "the Constitution is not a living document," which means the exact opposite of "the Constitution can be amended."
"I have said that progressives, like you, try to amend it too often."
Yeah, okay. What amendments to the Constitution have "progressives, like [me]" been proposing lately, and why do you disagree with them? Can you give a few examples? I mean, if "progressives like [me]" try to amend the Constitution "too often," there must be a dozen or so crazy amendments that "progressives, like [me]" have proposed lately.
"Name one politician you would trust to improve upon the thoughts of Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, or any of the founding fathers."
Elizabeth Warren. But it doesn't matter. If someone comes up with an amendment and gets enough support, Congress will pass it and the states will ratify it.
"Your entire statement seems to revolve around the fact that the constitution is full of old ideas. When the ideas are right, they don't need to be updated by progressives."
Yeah, well, the framers forgot to tell us that you can't own a guy, forgot to make sure that women would get to have a vote, and forgot to ensure that everyone would be equally protected by the law. The ideas in the constitution are pretty good. The problem is that the framers didn't anticipate all the creative ways in which politicians might try to restrict the people's rights, and in many cases forgot to specify that the constitution applies to all citizens, even ones the majority (or at least, a loud and vocal minority) might not like very much.
As for people trying to amend the Constitution, the latest proposed amendment came from a Kansas Representative, Republican Tim Huelskamp. And it's an amendment designed to restrict the liberty of Americans:
"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."
Yeah, those crazy progressives--oh, wait....
Really, the best amendments to the Constitution just make it very clear that yes, these rights are for everybody, even if they're not white guys. For a while, it was looking like we might have to amend the Constitution to specify that rights are for gay people, too, but as time goes on, more and more people seem to be realizing this, so a Constitutional amendment may be unnecessary after all.Let's be clear on another thing. Jefferson was every bit as important as the other men we've mentioned. His ideas were mirrored off of the Declaration of Independence, and he had tremendous influence. He was, without a doubt, one of the most important founding fathers. You appeared to think that because he wasn't present at the Constitutional Convention that he wasn't a founding father. I'm glad that we're clear about how he was a founding father.
You mention the flaws these men had, specifically Jefferson being a slave owner. Did you know that when he wrote the Declaration of Independence, he wrote a fairly passionate condemnation of slavery that put the blame on England? Southern states would have never agreed to this condemnation of slavery, so that part of the document was eliminated. Yes, Jefferson continued to have slaves, but he did in fact know it was wrong; he tried to end slavery almost a hundred years before the Civil War. Remember he was a Virginia man, a southern gentlemen. He had the nerve to stand up against his own people and try to end slavery, something that people don't seem to know, remember, or credit Jefferson for doing. For the record, Jefferson really didn't want constitutional amendments as much as he favored a total rewrite about every two decades.
Dude = guy who thinks he is right and who thinks he has corrected another person's argument. You may think my argument is inconsistent, but you are simply mistaken. Your comprehension of my point is inconsistent. It seems my words don't seem to be reaching you. Maybe your deep thought about "words have meaning" is eluding you.
These days, progressives don't try to push amendments. That's my point. You don't have the support to do so. Instead, the POTUS tries to push executive orders through, or he appoints liberal judges, or the legislature tries to push laws that flop in the House of Representatives. Progressives may have a lot of support, but they do not have enough to add an amendment, especially when it comes to the second amendment. You want to call that bullying, don't you? I call it a lack of support for your progressive opinion. If you go back and read my posts, you'll see that is one of the key points I have mentioned.
By the way, the Constitution is not a living, breathing document. LOL! You can amend it, but it takes a lot of work. I have likened it to changing an inscription upon a piece of granite. I'm not sure why that bothers you so much, but apparently it does. To me, this point is a sideshow, minutia; for some reason it seems to really get under your skin though. My point is and has been that it should be hard to change the Constitution. Otherwise, progressives would change it more often and erode freedoms. Just look at what progressives would do to the second amendment if they had the power to do so. Remember prohibition? You seem to avoid that whenever I mention it.
The Constitution never made some of the claims you are stating. It never expressed the right to own slaves. You assume that it authorized this by not saying it was illegal. Further, you want to justify continued "progressive" amendments to the Constitution based on events that occurred decades and decades ago. The argument is fair at first but then gets old. You are a progressive, right? Let's progress to another argument.
Finally, it is beyond laughable that you would put Elizabeth Warren up with the likes of Franklin, Adams, and Jefferson. Words can't express how ridiculous that is. Warren is no Franklin, Adams, or Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson - "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.""You mention the flaws these men had, specifically Jefferson being a slave owner. Did you know that when he wrote the Declaration of Independence, he wrote a fairly passionate condemnation of slavery that put the blame on England?"
"It's England's fault that I own all these slaves, and it's England's fault that I don't free them." Yeah, I knew that Jefferson blamed England in the original draft of the D of I, which is not the Constitution.
"Yes, Jefferson continued to have slaves, but he did in fact know it was wrong; he tried to end slavery almost a hundred years before the Civil War."
He sure didn't try very hard. There were a bunch of slaves he could have freed really, really easily: his own. And even though he knew it was wrong to own people, he kept right on doing it. Especially after he did some accounting and realized that every kid born into slavery at Monticello was making him money. Smithsonian Magazine had an article on that some months ago.
"By the way, the Constitution is not a living, breathing document. LOL! You can amend it, but it takes a lot of work."
You just contradicted yourself again.
"To me, this point is a sideshow, minutia;"
Only because it means you're completely incorrect.
"My point is and has been that it should be hard to change the Constitution."
Yes, you're right about that point. It's hard to change, not unchangeable.
"Remember prohibition? You seem to avoid that whenever I mention it."
Yeah, I remember prohibition: I was the first one to bring it up, in my first post: the one where I corrected your mistake about the Constitution not being a living document. Go check; it's still there.
"Warren is no Franklin, Adams, or Jefferson."
No, you're right: she's way more enlightened than any of those guys were--and they were products of the Age of Enlightenment.
Also, and finally, you just contradicted yourself with an argument from one of your icons. You say that the constitution should rarely be changed, but you just cited your favorite founder, Jefferson, as saying that the Constitution should be totally re-written every two decades. So, after your derision of Senator Warren, you're setting [i]yourself[/]i up as wiser than Jefferson?Jeff,
Jefferson said it should be entirely replaced, not amended. Do you know the difference? Replacing a car is different than fixing it, right? There is a difference. Remember that words have meanings?
I can't stop laughing about your statement comparing the founding fathers to your omnipotent leader, Elizabeth Warren. I said, "Warren is no Franklin, Adams, or Jefferson." Your hysterical response was, "No, you're right: she's way more enlightened than any of those guys were--and they were products of the Age of Enlightenment." You love to denigrate the contributions of Jefferson and heighten the accomplishments of Elizabeth Warren. As a history teacher, I find your statement unsupportable by reality, regardless of the palpable imperfections each of the founding fathers had. NO historian, absolutely none, would ever agree with you, not one.
What has Warren accomplished to put her up in the rarefied likes of our founding fathers? Since she's kind of a nobody, I searched her name. All I found is people laughing at her liberal quotes and a lot of minor scandals. I see no significant accomplishments. She did lie about her racial heritage and submit recipes for publication, claiming they were hers when they weren't. I guess she's a good liar, and that seems to have merit for many politicians. Other than that, what has she accomplished? Did she write one of the most important documents in American history? Was she president? Did she acquire fifteen states at the cost of 3 cents per acre? Is she known as one of the greatest scientific minds of her time? Was she part of the genius that formed the greatest nation on earth? Good luck finding any educated person, in the fields of history or politics, to agree with your absurd statement placing Elizabeth Warren up with Franklin, Adams, or Jefferson. Sorry, I still can't stop laughing about it. Thanks, you made my day. Everybody needs a little humor.
I say that the Constitution is amendable but that our freedoms should be difficult to change, like an inscription in granite. You want me to concede that the Constitution is a living, breathing document. I don't know why you are so hung up on that. It's a matter of semantics, yet you seem to be truly bothered by it. Is it because your progressive mentality doesn't want to acknowledge that the Constitution should be difficult to amend? I don't know. It's a bit odd to me. Again, this is not even an issue to me.
Jeff, thanks again for the laugh."Jefferson said it should be entirely replaced, not amended. Do you know the difference?"
Yes, of course I do.
Do you understand that completely re-writing the constitution would be a very radical step? One that would be much more radical than merely amending it?
Do you understand that you've been saying that you don't even want to amend the constitution?
Of course, you understand that Jefferson, whom you claim to revere, advised us to scrap the whole thing and replace it entirely, 'cos you're the one who first mentioned it.
Do you realize that you're telling us that you're wiser than Jefferson (in spite of copious evidence to the contrary in this very thread)?
Do you further realize how ludicrous that sounds to pretty much anyone who isn't you?
Probably not.
"As a history teacher, I find your statement unsupportable by reality, regardless of the palpable imperfections each of the founding fathers had. "
Holy cow, you actually teach history? Who'd you sleep with to get that gig? Cos you're clearly unqualified for the job, based on your comments on this thread alone.
"Since [Warren]'s kind of a nobody,"
So a United States Senator is a 'nobody' in your book?
More evidence that you have no business teaching history to young people.
"I searched her name. All I found is people laughing at her liberal quotes and a lot of minor scandals. I see no significant accomplishments. "
This is evidence of the fact that your google-fu is weak and your confirmation bias is mighty.
She's taught law at such prestigious institutions as Rutgers, U of M, University of Pennsylvania, and Harvard, and authored several books, not to mention being elected to the US Senate. No significant accomplishments, indeed. Words do mean things. You seem to have no idea what they mean, however. Perhaps you should get a dictionary and learn how to look words up. (Pro-tip: they're in alphabetical order.)
"I say that the Constitution is amendable, but that our freedoms should be difficult to change, like an inscription in granite. You want me to concede that the Constitution is a living, breathing document."
You just did. I admire that: it must have been be hard for you to admit that you were wrong.
"Is it because your progressive mentality doesn't want to acknowledge that the Constitution should be difficult to amend?"
Of course not, since I was the first one who pointed out the difficulty of amending the constitution (go check: it's still up there). If you'd bother to actually read posts before you start disagreeing with them, you'd have known this already.I don't claim to revere Jefferson. I do revere him. Later, you claim that I say I am wiser than Jefferson. Which is it? I revere him, or I claim to be wiser?
You state, "Do you understand that you've been saying that you don't even want to amend the constitution?" I never once said that. I said it should be difficult to amend.
You state, "Do you realize that you're telling us that you're wiser than Jefferson (in spite of copious evidence to the contrary in this very thread)?" When? Please provide the quote. You are fabricating things at this point. I NEVER claimed to be wiser than Jefferson, not once. It's all in this thread, and anybody can read it. Provide the evidence that I said that. I did say that Jefferson and the founding fathers were geniuses.
Jeff, I actually went to college to get the "gig." You can't sleep with somebody to get a degree. College doesn't work that way. To be accurate, I have multiple degrees, and one is in U.S. history.
You were factually incorrect when you said that Jefferson wasn't a founding father, because he didn't attend the Constitutional Convention. It's all here in the thread. I stand behind my statement, as it is factually and historically correct.
When you compare a senator to Jefferson, Adams, or Franklin, the standard is pretty high. Yes, she is a total nobody compared to these people. Tell me about Matthew Butler. He was a senator, but he too is not memorable. There have been many, many senators. Few are considered important by historians. Being a senator isn't necessarily something that will get you to be revered at the same level as Jefferson, Adams, or Franklin.
To your credit, you did indeed say that the Constitution is difficult to amend, yet you seem to hold some kind of disdain for that. That is one of my points. You seem to be all too willing to amend it. I guess that's what makes the world turn for progressives.I don't claim to revere Jefferson. I do revere him. Later, you claim that I say I am wiser than Jefferson. Which is it? I revere him, or I claim to be wiser?
You state, "Do you understand that you've been saying that you don't even want to amend the constitution?" I never once said that. I said it should be difficult to amend.
And then you said that Jefferson was in favor of a total re-write every 20 years or so.
Do you disagree? Why or why not? Use examples.
Jeff, I actually went to college to get the "gig." You can't sleep with somebody to get a degree. College doesn't work that way. To be accurate, I have multiple degrees, and one is in U.S. history.
I feel sorry for your students.
You were factually incorrect when you said that Jefferson wasn't a founding father, because he didn't attend the Constitutional Convention.
I never said Jefferson wasn't a founder. I merely pointed out that he wasn't at the Constitutional Convention. I pointed this out because we were talking about the Constitution, and you brought up Jefferson, who didn't take part in writing it. Reading comprehension for the loss.
It's all here in the thread.
Sure is.
your credit, you did indeed say that the Constitution is difficult to amend,
That's 'cos it is difficult to amend. By design.
You seem to be all too willing to amend it. I guess that's what makes the world turn for progressives.
No, the fact that the world turns, and keeps turning, in spite of conservatives' desired to reverse time and keep the country in some mythical golden age that (never) happened sometime between the end of WWII and the Civil Rights Act, is why the Constitution needs amending every now and then.
We can talk about whether a given amendment would be a good idea or not, and unless a whole lot of people think it's a good idea, it'll never happen. But that doesn't change the fact that the Constitution is, and was deliberately designed to be, a living document.
Keep arguing the point if you want, but you'll only make yourself look sillier.First off, we were NOT talking about the Convention. You were the first to bring it up. I was talking about founding fathers, and I called them founding fathers; I never mentioned the Constitutional Convention until you brought it up. Again, it's a matter of record. You can claim that I have a reading comprehension problem, which seems petty, but anybody can go back and see you are wrong. You are wrong.
I see that you are not answering my questions. You said that I stated I was wiser than Jefferson. I asked for my quote, because I knew I didn't say that. You didn't supply a quote, because it doesn't exist.
You seem to be very emotional over this topic. You started with comments like, "Words have meaning," and now you seem to want to make this personal by denigrating both my educational experiences and my teaching ability. Nice. It appears that when the debate is not going your way, you resort to making up quotes or making repeated personal attacks. Neither of those actions further any debate and render this thread quite pointless. Nobody but the two of us are responding anyway. How fun is that?
In reality, most of what we have debated is opinion. Both of us could be wrong about much. I think it would do us both a little good to step away from this. Perhaps we can debate another time, and I hope we can have a civil debate, one that keeps on topic and refrains from personal attacks.
Best wishes.
EA
Very serious. Perhaps one of the biggest problems in this country is concerning ourselves too much with the Second Amendment. When the value of human life is secondary to the law itself then the law needs to be changed.
Just how many innocent lives will have to be taken based on the Second Amendment when somebody finally grows up and says "enough.""We have the God-given right to keep and bear arms, to self-defense, etc., etc. Our Declaration of Independence (2nd para) recognizes that our Rights come from God and are unalienable.
In addition, the 2nd Amendment to our federal Constitution recognizes that this God-given right to keep and bear arms is to be free from any interference WHATSOEVER from the federal government."
http://chiefkessler.com/
No, religion does not cause conflict.Somebody Please Call a Paramedic for Me-You of all people talking about God-given right when you spent a year that I know of telling Christians there is no God What a Hypocrite.
This kind of flawed thinking is the reason people should not have guns.Oops Span Star,read the last sentence please.
"No, religion does not cause conflict. lol "
Where's the hypocrisy?The hypocrisy is in a Troubled man stating that there is no God then using God to defend his position.
But he wasn't using god to defend his position. He was quoting that deranged policeman in your OP!
After considering what you have said I went back and reread his comments again, perhaps you're right you would think that after all these years he would learn to write clearer than he does-people aren't mind readers and it helps the reader when people say things like this was written, he/she said etc.
He did enclose it in "quote" marks but perhaps he should have kicked off with a "he said".
Interesting, this has been explained dozens of times, yet you still pull the same fallacy out of thin air.
It's like talking to little children about Santa Clause, because they believe in Santa Claus, we talk to them on their level of understanding pretending Santa is real so we can relate to them.
This is not about being hypocritical, it's about stooping to another person's level of intellect.
What's really hilarious about your misunderstanding is the fact that I quoted another person, never once indicating anything about whether or not I believe in gods.
Perhaps, reading comprehension skills may be necessary for you to learn.
Got a question for you:
What gun would Jesus carry?
Give up?
A nail gun! >Badump-bump!<
('Cos he's a carpenter.)John,
Oh, isn't that nice. The socialist who isn't American but loves to bash America likes the progressive's politics.
You won't even acknowledge reality, North Korea's recent threat towards America. What's an endorsement worth when it comes from somebody who denies something that was reported by CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, FOX, CNBC, CSPAN, and the BBC even worth? The answer is below nil, negative value. Thanks.Doesn't alter the fact that, whether I agree with him or not, Jeff is putting over a cogent argument whilst you are all over the place contradicting yourself right left and centre.
Related Discussions
- 66
2nd Amendment of the USA
by jgrimes331 8 years ago
Do you think the founding fathers of America; in consideration to AK-47's, assault weapons and handguns, would have reconsidered there position to NOT include the 2nd Amendment in the American Constitution? If we are going to have the right to bear arms, shouldn't the "burden" in...
- 4003
The outdated 2nd amendment.
by Mike Russo 8 years ago
Let's face facts people. The 2nd amendment was written for another time and another place. It has no place in today's world. It is causing mentally ill people to commit mass killings. The gun enthusiast who think they are going to protect themselves from government tyranny are...
- 96
What Would You Change in Today's Constitution and Its Amdendments?
by Scott Belford 8 years ago
If you were King for a day, what elements of of the U.S. Constitution amd its Amendments would you want to see deleted, repealed, added, or mofified to make it fit more to the way the SIGNERS of the Constitution intended it to mean, given their philosophical druthers and not the political realities...
- 16
Has the National Rifle Association gained too much power and influence in Americ
by Xenonlit 11 years ago
Has the National Rifle Association gained too much power and influence in America?Is it time to force the NRA to step out of the business of dictating our laws in ways that allow mass shootings? If no one pulls out the gun that they are allowed to carry and defends a crowd, then what good is the...
- 36
Is it time to get rid of the Second Amendment?
by Anish Patel 11 years ago
Is it time to get rid of the Second Amendment?The right to bear arms, does it still make sense in today's world?
- 27
A question for people who are against gun control: does the fact that 'the found
by Mr. Happy 11 years ago
A question for people who are against gun control: does the fact that 'the founding fathers" wrotethat the 2nd amendment shall not be infringed lead them to believe that gun laws will never change? With this kind of thinking, should Italy return to Roman laws and should Egypt re-enact the laws...