CDZ Guns Tanks and Nucklear Weapons. The second amendment.

[hauke]

P.S. stop trump, if neccesarry vote hillary

 

[Hiryuu]

so the constitution made in 1776 isn t up to date.. what suprise.

how about a nationwide basic democratic movement to make a new constitution.

wiith laws that are 21 century ?

maybe make a 21 century democratic system too

The Constitution not only allows that, but lays out a plan for doing so. But to address your initial point, It doesn't matter if it is 1776 or not. The change of time doesn't change the fact that we as citizens have a protected right to bear arms. Although I cannot argue with the fact the Constitution gets in the way of a bunch of people that want a stronger federal government, that doesn't make it outdated, just very effective at its intended purpose.

 

[hauke]

hillary will be just as is, trump will be WW 3

 

[hauke]

the constitution can be changed, although i like most of the US constitution

 

[Hiryuu]

hillary will be just as is, trump will be WW 3

What do Democrat Presidential Nominee Clinton and Republican Presidential Nominee Trump have to do with the Constitution and the right to bear arms? Feel free to tie them together the best you can in attempts to stay on-topic with your initial rant.

 

[Ringel05]

so the constitution made in 1776 isn t up to date.. what suprise.

how about a nationwide basic democratic movement to make a new constitution.

wiith laws that are 21 century ?

maybe make a 21 century democratic system too

Apparently you have no idea how our Constitution works. The Constitution tells the government what it can and cannot do. These rights are considered inalienable, naturally occurring not rights given us by the government. There are mechanisms laid out in the Constitution to make changes, to amend, remove or add Amendments.
Heck if you want to change your political system like you change shirts be my guest, it just doesn't work that way here.

 

[hauke]

the effectivness of a single person to commit murder with arms was not forseen by the founding fathers.

 

[hauke]

the usa president can has the ability to act on himself. the president of the usa can declare that the usa is in a war and use nuclear weapons to destroy persived enemys.

donald trump persives enemys very easily

he would as american president bear icbm armed with 10 nuclear bombs as arms

do you want that ?

do you want donald trump to stop tweet and nuclear attack instead `?

 

[Hiryuu]

the effectivness of a single person to commit murder with arms was not forseen by the founding fathers.

Committing murder has never been legal (outside of what some people think regarding abortion). The degree of effectiveness never eliminates the responsibility of the murderer. The desire to think that society can cure the ills of effective means of murder by eliminating firearms, just ignores the fact car bombs are going off weekly in places where firearms are harder to come by, or would reduce the effectiveness of ambush/surprise.

 

[GaryDog]

the 2nd amendmend was made in 1784 when arms meant muzzle loaded muskets.

not assault rifles machineguns tanks nuclear weapons

They also had manual printing presses, no telegraph, no phones, no internet, no email. Using your obvious reference to firearms non-existance at the time what applies to one applies to all...........

Haven't seen a phone or telegraph kill anyone with a projectile traveling at 1800 meters per second.

 

[Hiryuu]

the usa president can has the ability to act on himself. the president of the usa can declare that the usa is in a war and use nuclear weapons to destroy persived enemys.

donald trump persives enemys very easily

he would as american president bear icbm armed with 10 nuclear bombs as arms

do you want that ?

do you want donald trump to stop tweet and nuclear attack instead `?

No, the President cannot declare war, only Congress can do that.

 

[Ringel05]

the effectivness of a single person to commit murder with arms was not forseen by the founding fathers.

And that has what to do with the Constitution?

Other than an exercise in history and philosophy it means nothing.

Oh and by the way, the US was not the first democracy (and in fact we're a democratic republic not a true democracy). Greece was the first known democracy and supposedly it was a true democracy, with the problems that are associated with that form of government.

 

[hauke]

Bullshit, sorry for the language

murder has allways been legal if the being commiting murder is a country

texas is commiting murder its called a death sentance

 

[Ringel05]

the 2nd amendmend was made in 1784 when arms meant muzzle loaded muskets.

not assault rifles machineguns tanks nuclear weapons

They also had manual printing presses, no telegraph, no phones, no internet, no email. Using your obvious reference to firearms non-existance at the time what applies to one applies to all...........

Haven't seen a phone or telegraph kill anyone with a projectile traveling at 1800 meters per second.

Missed the point, didn'tcha........

 

[hauke]

your right only congress can declare war, but the president has 3 days to commit acts of war before he needs the congress. with icbm he needs 30 minutes

sorry im german im not that good with either the USA constitution nor USA laws

 

[Hiryuu]

Bullshit, sorry for the language

murder has allways been legal if the being commiting murder is a country

texas is commiting murder its called a death sentance

That's not murder as much as homicide, but you aren't that strong with linguistics anyway.

 

[GaryDog]

the effectivness of a single person to commit murder with arms was not forseen by the founding fathers.

Committing murder has never been legal (outside of what some people think regarding abortion). The degree of effectiveness never eliminates the responsibility of the murderer. The desire to think that society can cure the ills of effective means of murder by eliminating firearms, just ignores the fact car bombs are going off weekly in places where firearms are harder to come by, or would reduce the effectiveness of ambush/surprise.

Specious argument at best. It presupposes that guns are not useful for killing due to their size, abundance, and affordability. If that's true, then they're useless for self-defense, something that even Republicans and especially the NRA won't admit to.

 

[Hiryuu]

your right only congress can declare war, but the president has 3 days to commit acts of war before he needs the congress. with icbm he needs 30 minutes

There are also defined limits to the acts he can commit. Of course a nuclear deterrent works better when it can be utilized appropriately, but that still doesn't negate the consequences of such actions.

 

[GaryDog]

the 2nd amendmend was made in 1784 when arms meant muzzle loaded muskets.

not assault rifles machineguns tanks nuclear weapons

They also had manual printing presses, no telegraph, no phones, no internet, no email. Using your obvious reference to firearms non-existance at the time what applies to one applies to all...........

Haven't seen a phone or telegraph kill anyone with a projectile traveling at 1800 meters per second.

Missed the point, didn'tcha........

Uh, no. I think you did. The rapid manner in which technology has changed for purposes of speech has been frequently addressed with time, place and manner restrictions. Just because something is an enumerated right doesn't mean it's limitless. That should matter infinitely more when it comes to items made to kill, as opposed to items made to pass along ideas.

 

[Hiryuu]

Specious argument at best. It presupposes that guns are not useful for killing due to their size, abundance, and affordability. If that's true, then they're useless for self-defense, something that even Republicans and especially the NRA won't admit to.

Well, hold those goof-wads in the NRA down and tickle their feet until they admit to all you want them to ... ... That's about the extent of your argument reaches.