You could never have the latter without sacrificing the legitimacy of our political system and inviting corruption into the legislature
@Twinrova You're not wrong. It's a minefield. It's really hard to evaluate someone's knowledge fairly, and equally across disciplines.
Oh, and 60 votes in the Senate for lifetime appointments.
Because "reasonable limits" is a moving target. If you are not assaulting the person or property of another, what you do should be no one else's business.
@Liam_Hayden That is the logic that justifies things like unlimited speech. That would mean we could have public speakers just command their audience of followers to kill someone and they wouldn't ne charged, lol. Unlimited freedom is insane.
I am all for impimgmemt upon my rights as long since it will not linit me in the ability to take another's life or offend them. It will however be enough that no one would stand up to me including government. No. If such an Amendment were to become I alomg with many other will be providing the Tree of Librety its natural manure. Thought control will take more lives than an insurrection. Thus justifying an insurrection.
@MannMitAntworten It is very unclear to me what you are saying. You started off by suggesting that that it is okay to infringe on your rights as long as you're still allowed to kill people, which can't be what you originally intended to convey. Please re-explain yourself.
And you don't think out government is somewhat oppressive? Does your Congressman see after your needs or his own? Is everything up for a vote or do they pass any laws they wish whether you like it or not? Do we actually have that many freedoms that can't be taken away like they are trying to do with the 2nd? After that gets taken away what will be next on the chopping block?
Oh no I think the US government is so oppressive and you need to put that amendment in to action. I'm Canadian and 14 so I'm not too too into US politics.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
"All men over 18 must own a gun of some sort""men"? "must"?What about women and men in prison?
@goaded they are over 18 and you should not lose your rights. Taking guns rights is fairly new thing. 100 some years ago. You get out of prison. You got a 25 dollar gold piece and a colt 45Thats what I call freedom
Woman if they want to they can carry oneAnd none of this stupid gun reg. crap. You should be able to own a gun without the goverment knowing you having it
Here's a less deadly counter-suggestion. Give everybody a single-shot pistol on their 18th birthday. If things ever get so dire that the government has to be overthrown by the people, it should be en masse, not a tiny minority. Reasonable regulations for everything else.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator
@goaded I like your thinking
Hell in wisconsin. You can't even buy a pack of smokes till your 21 now. When I was kid my mom sent me to the store with a note to get 6 pack of beer and pack of smokes.
Like I get smoking is bad and all, and I get why they did it. But if you can die for your country at 18 then why can't you have a drink and a pack of smokes. Seems a little uneven is all.
Thats what im saying. Talk about taking freedoms away there's two right there
Thats what im talking about
I completely disagree with the burdening the general population for another's decisions. Criminal law is already a large enough expense. I do however fully support self eugenics. equally, I do not feel the general population should should shoulder any birth defects brought to full term.
Taxpayers already pay for viagra and shit. I see this as no different. Besides it can be cheaper in the long run. What’s worse, an expense on the state for 18 years? Or a $500 abortion or a few months of birth control?
Not for the judicial. Because then the laws would be followed through based on partisanship.
It would be a real disaster.
Laws will be made and enforced based on partisanship regardless. I just hope it would lead to smarter decisions.
@MannMitAntworten The worst failed experiment since the Philadelphia Experiment.