Why we need the 2nd Amendment

[Colin norris]

Cool story

You've been exposed dickhead and you know it. Try again but with facts next time.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

That's a complete lie because it doesn't say that read it dickhead. That's a very poor justification for an arsenal of unused weapons.

What you really mean is a Democrat government. Trump was the wannabe fascist/tyrant by orchestrating the j6 riots but you did nothing about it.
There will be no tyrannical governments whole democracy prevails and the election of Biden over trump proves the people are not as mad as you.

The 2nd Amendment exists so the people can defend themselves. Period. From the government, foreign invaders, criminals, it doesn't matter.

I don't need to justify the number of guns I own. I have the right own a thousand guns, if I want.

 

[Couchpotato]

You've been exposed dickhead and you know it. Try again but with facts next time.

I’m sure you believe that

 

[M14 Shooter]

Firstly, the 2nd says "a well regulated militia".
It does Not say every idiot is militia.

Thank you for further illustrating your ignorance, bigotry and irrational fear.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You've been exposed dickhead and you know it. Try again but with facts next time.

Thank you for further illustrating your ignorance, bigotry and irrational fear.

 

[Colin norris]

I’m sure you believe that

You bet I do and you can't take it. Fick you and your 2nd amendment. You are all egotistical gun nuts who are frightened to walk out the door without a gun.
Home of the brave my arse.

 

[Couchpotato]

You bet I do and you can't take it. Fick you and your 2nd amendment. You are all egotistical gun nuts who are frightened to walk out the door without a gun.
Home of the brave my arse.

Yeah I can tell how much you believe it by how insecure you are.

 

[Colin norris]

Yeah I can tell how much you believe it by how insecure you are.

Stay on topic even if it starts to pain.
But the irony of you saying I'm insecure yet you all have guns to protect yourselves. Why a hypocrit. You're completely devoid of any brains.

 

[Couchpotato]

Stay on topic even if it starts to pain.
But the irony of you saying I'm insecure yet you all have guns to protect yourselves. Why a hypocrit. You're completely devoid of any brains.

cool story. Bitch

 

[frigidweirdo]

it’s easy to confuse a corrupt politician with a tyrant if you were born and live in the United States.

You might ask a person from Cuba or Venezuela who is living in the states if he feels this nation is a tyranny. I used to live in a predominate Cuban neighborhood. Cubans who fled Cuba were damn happy to be living in the U.S.

You have to really want to leave a nation to travel like this.

I get what you're saying.

Problem I have is that people often misuse words.

Like "Communism" which suddenly becomes either "anyone who calls themselves Communist regardless of whether they are or not" or "Anything that looks like the USSR".

Cuba might be considered tyrannical. But not because of how it acted, but because of how the leader had power.

Castro had 100% of the power. Therefore he was a tyrant. It didn't matter what he did with that power, he was a tyrant simply for the fact that he had this power.

I doubt those Cubans left simply because Castro had that power. They left because of what he did with that power.

Obviously absolute power corrupts. But that's a consequence of tyranny rather than tyranny itself.

 

[Colin norris]

cool story. Bitch

Oh it's bitch now. You getting a little frustrated old darling. I'm under your skin.

 

[whitehall]

What's the point? The 2nd Amendment has been upheld in a dozen Supreme Court decisions. Why do we need to justify the freaking Bill of Rights every time democrats get the majority in congress?

 

[Couchpotato]

Oh it's bitch now. You getting a little frustrated old darling. I'm under your skin.

Sure ya are.

 

[Batcat]

I get what you're saying.

Problem I have is that people often misuse words.

Like "Communism" which suddenly becomes either "anyone who calls themselves Communist regardless of whether they are or not" or "Anything that looks like the USSR".

Cuba might be considered tyrannical. But not because of how it acted, but because of how the leader had power.

Castro had 100% of the power. Therefore he was a tyrant. It didn't matter what he did with that power, he was a tyrant simply for the fact that he had this power.

I doubt those Cubans left simply because Castro had that power. They left because of what he did with that power.

Obviously absolute power corrupts. But that's a consequence of tyranny rather than tyranny itself.

It has been said that the best form of government is a benevolent dictatorship. The problem is finding a benevolent dictator.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It has been said that the best form of government is a benevolent dictatorship. The problem is finding a benevolent dictator.

Yeah, the problem is all forms of government have their problems.

For me, Proportional Representation is the best, with a series of other things, that bring people into politics more. FPTP just seems to lead to money controlling it all, because it's far easier to use money to change the outcome of a small area, than the whole country.

Germany spent less on their whole federal election than one Senate race in the US.... says a lot.

 

[Batcat]

Yeah, the problem is all forms of government have their problems.

For me, Proportional Representation is the best, with a series of other things, that bring people into politics more. FPTP just seems to lead to money controlling it all, because it's far easier to use money to change the outcome of a small area, than the whole country.

Germany spent less on their whole federal election than one Senate race in the US.... says a lot.

Well there is no doubt that Big Money has corrupted our election process. The cost to win an election to the House of Representatives is $1.6 million. Congress Critters are forced to spend much of their time raising money. Your idea of Proportional Representation is interesting but I image hard to implement.

The astonishing amount of money it costs to win a seat in Congress today

The cost of winning an election has skeyrocketed, which may be in large part due to the 2010 landmark United States Supreme Court Case ruling that corporations could spend unlimited amounts of money to influence federal elections.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well there is no doubt that Big Money has corrupted our election process. The cost to win an election to the House of Representatives is $1.6 million. Congress Critters are forced to spend much of their time raising money. Your idea of Proportional Representation is interesting but I image hard to implement.

The astonishing amount of money it costs to win a seat in Congress today

The cost of winning an election has skeyrocketed, which may be in large part due to the 2010 landmark United States Supreme Court Case ruling that corporations could spend unlimited amounts of money to influence federal elections.

www.nbcnews.com

No, PR is easy to implement. Beyond the fact that the Reps and Dems don't want it and they make up nearly 100% of the US political system, that is.

Germany has it. People vote, there's a 5% cut off (I prefer a lower number, Denmark has 2%) and then the votes are counted and then based on these numbers the seats are doled out.

Much simpler than having gerrymandering and all the other nonsense that goes on. You can't gerrymander PR.

 

[Batcat]

No, PR is easy to implement. Beyond the fact that the Reps and Dems don't want it and they make up nearly 100% of the US political system, that is.

Germany has it. People vote, there's a 5% cut off (I prefer a lower number, Denmark has 2%) and then the votes are counted and then based on these numbers the seats are doled out.

Much simpler than having gerrymandering and all the other nonsense that goes on. You can't gerrymander PR.

I thought changing would require a Constitutional amendment but apparently I was wrong.

Rep.htmlProportional Representation What is Proportional Representation?

thirdworldtraveler.com

***snip***

So How Do We Change From "Winner-Take-All" To Proportional Representation?

In many states it is possible to convert to PR simply by changing applicable laws. Amendments to the U.S. Constitution are not required. The laws can be changed by a simple vote of the legislatures, or in many cases via a voter initiative. PR can be adapted to local, state and national levels, bringing the democratic promise of "one person, one vote" closer to fulfillment.​

If the political will could be mobilized, it is possible to convert immediately to a system of proportional representation for electing representatives to city councils, state legislatures, and even the U.S. House of Representatives. U.S. Senators could be elected by Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), giving voters more choice. As a bonus, PR would spare states the torment of legislative redistricting, an arduous, bitter and partisan gerrymandering affair.​

​

 

[Colin norris]

Sure ya are.

Yes if course I am. And you're a slut.

 

[LuckyDuck]

And who gets to decide who the enemy is?

The enemy: Any foreign or domestic government with the active goal of trying to destroy our Constitutional Republic.