Republicans introduce joint resolution proposing Congress Term Limit Amendment

[Marener]

They did, by giving the RKBA to the people and not to the Milita.

Only for a specific purpose. Any laws that don’t conflict with that purpose are constitutional.

It’s pretty clear we’ve reached the limits of your ability to engage in logical discussion. Your indoctrination boxes you in.

 

[ThisIsMe]

You don't see diddly-shit, s0n.

Yeah, you didn't get that one by so subtly.

Eliminate the 17th ammendment which then does away with the limitation of 2 senators for each state thus opening the door for some states to appoint many more senators.

 

[martybegan]

I may sound like a lefty here but:

A consitutional republic just means one party control whereby we force the public to accept that party's laws and the public has no say in the matter. If it hadn't been for Joe Manchin and Kirsten Sinema, we would be living under that one party rule right now under Democrats. Fortunately, God was watching down on us and that didn't happen. While I prefer the conservative views on many things, I don't believe in one party rule, to hell with Americans.

We have two parties and most of them get reelected. The only real newbies are when there is a switch of parties. That has favored Senate Republicans this go around and again in the near future. I say we hold onto that and not give the other side an opportunity to flip seats with term limits. When you replace a republican with a republican or a democrat with a democrat, term limits mean nothing because all you get is a ditto. You're fooling yourself if that will be some kind of a change.

There ARE term limits now, as I said. If you don't like who we have then you make them a one term person. By denying a person to be on the ballot, as the left tried to do with Trump, you are minimizing elections and taking democracy away, which is why we vote, AKA democracy. The thing is, if people are so in favor of term limits then why do we just keep reelecting the same people over and over? The answer is those in favor of term limits are but a minority of voters and the majority wins.

Comparing term limits to the Christmas rush at Macy's isn't as far fetched as you think. Lobbysists are lobbysists and they will bribe anyone and everyone, whether there are term limits or not. And, you might be more apt to take more in bribes if you know your days are numbered.

I just think you are over simplyfying what you think the results of term limits would bring.

No it means, a constitution which means a document describing the government, and a republic, meaning a represenative form a government led by a non hereditary executive.

The rest is saying we need a bigger change, when while I agree, this is a good one for now.

 

[martybegan]

Only for a specific purpose. Any laws that don’t conflict with that purpose are constitutional.

It’s pretty clear we’ve reached the limits of your ability to engage in logical discussion. Your indoctrination boxes you in.

No, not for a specific purpose. They believed the people bearing arms was required for the militias, and the States should retain the right to have those militias.

Like a man pretending to be a woman (something you also support) you believe your thoughts become reality.

It's kind of pathetic.

 

[Marener]

No, not for a specific purpose

Not according to the constitution. It’s literally there in the text.

You’re ignoring both the text and the intent because you cling to guns as a part of your insecure culture.

 

[martybegan]

Not according to the constitution. It’s literally there in the text.

You’re ignoring both the text and the intent because you cling to guns as a part of your insecure culture.

yes, the PEOPLE having the RKBA.

It doesn't say the militias have the RKBA.

In fact it goes on to clarify the right belongs to the people AFTER talking about militias.

 

[Marener]

yes, the PEOPLE having the RKBA.

It doesn't say the militias have the RKBA.

In fact it goes on to clarify the right belongs to the people AFTER talking about militias.

Because the PEOPLE are in the MILITIA. A MILITIA is a group of PEOPLE. Jesus, this is stuoid.

If I say you can have this phone for work, it doesn’t mean you can play games on it.

The purpose defines the scope.

 

[martybegan]

Because the PEOPLE are in the MILITIA. A MILITIA is a group of PEOPLE. Jesus, this is stuoid.

If I say you can have this phone for work, it doesn’t mean you can play games on it.

The purpose defines the scope.

And yet they didn't just say the RBKA belonged to the Milita.

They could have, but they didn't. they gave it to the people.

 

[Marener]

And yet they didn't just say the RBKA belonged to the Milita.

They could have, but they didn't. they gave it to the people.

Because that’s not how militias work, dope. Militias are BYOG.

 

[martybegan]

Because that’s not how militias work, dope. Militias are BYOG.

Not the ones mobilized during the civil war, the State forces were armed with standard federal munitions.

And some did keep arms in an armory as well, so the Milita wasn't just armed with squirrel guns.

What were the Brits trying to seize during the battle of Lexington?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Yeah, you didn't get that one by so subtly.

Eliminate the 17th ammendment which then does away with the limitation of 2 senators for each state thus opening the door for some states to appoint many more senators.

You need some serious remedial reading instruction if you think there can be more than 2 Senators per state.

Article 1 Section 3: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote."

17th Amendment: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote."

BTW you spelled "amendment" incorrectly.

 

[ThisIsMe]

You need some serious remedial reading instruction if you think there can be more than 2 Senators per state.

Article 1 Section 3: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote."

17th Amendment: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote."

BTW you spelled "amendment" incorrectly.

OK grammar police lol

Yes,if you eliminate the 17th amendment, then you remove the 2 senator limitation...

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

A good idea but won't happen.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

OK grammar police lol

Yes,if you eliminate the 17th amendment, then you remove the 2 senator limitation...

Bullshit! Lay off the drugs and alcohol before posting.

It's in Article 1 Section 3 that I posted, dumbass!

 

[Nostra]

If the intent matters, then the purpose of the 2nd amendment isn’t for unrestricted access to guns for a personal use, as conservative judges want us to think when they reversed longstanding precedent and invented a new purpose.

The Constitution puts restrictions on the Federal government, not the people.

“Shall not be infringed”

 

[Nostra]

In order to maintain a militia. That’s the intent.

Until your conservative judges decided to rewrite the constitution and invent intent that isn’t in the text.

Nope. “The right of the people”

 

[Nostra]

So we can pass any law to restrict guns that doesn’t conflict with the purpose of maintaining a militia.

After all, that is the original intent.

Lies.

 

[Nostra]

Not according to the constitution. It’s literally there in the text.

You’re ignoring both the text and the intent because you cling to guns as a part of your insecure culture.

You have demonstrated you are clueless on yet another topic.

 

[Nostra]

Not according to the constitution. It’s literally there in the text.

You’re ignoring both the text and the intent because you cling to guns as a part of your insecure culture.

Get educated….

What the Second Amendment Means

It was no small task for the Founding Fathers to put the building blocks of American freedom into writing. There was much debate amongst them about the amendments' proposed contents. However, they did widely agree on the Second Amendment’s intended meaning. [1]

Let’s take a look at the meaning a bit more in-depth by breaking down all twenty-seven words line by line.

“A well regulated Militia, …”

The term “militia” mentioned in the Second Amendment's opening line refers to the American people. As George Mason described it:

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials.” [2]

The Supreme Court has established that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right unrelated to one’s status in a militia. [3]

“…being necessary to the security of a free State…

The Founding Fathers felt that citizens should be able to protect themselves against the government and any other threat to their wellbeing or personal freedom. The Second Amendment granted citizens that right — giving them the ability to defend themselves and their property.

Though times have changed dramatically, the need for defenses afforded by the Second Amendment has remained much the same.

“…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The final line states that citizens have the individual right to own firearms for lawful purposes and that the government may not interfere with that right.

 

[Rocko]

Yeah this bill is DOA