RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at?

RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BamaD -> RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? (12/29/2014 12:51:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u How would discussing the second be a derailment ? The fucking thread asks the question ? Is your head so far up your ass that you can't see that ? It would easily turn into a gun control debate. Is your head so far up your ass that you can't see that?

Musicmystery -> RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? (12/29/2014 12:55:05 PM)
Wasn't that your question? What parts folks didn't care for? [8\|]

BamaD -> RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? (12/29/2014 1:21:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Sacrosanct....to some,especially to those who view the butchers bill as simply the price to be paid so they can fondle and stroke their weapons [8\|] For example some people will actually apply the basest possible motives to anyone who disagrees with them.

Musicmystery -> RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? (12/29/2014 1:23:58 PM)
So....you're looking for responses only from people who agree with you. Why not just make a list, then, construct a poll. Nobody's surprised where you stand. Very old news.

slvemike4u -> RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? (12/29/2014 1:31:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u How would discussing the second be a derailment ? The fucking thread asks the question ? Is your head so far up your ass that you can't see that ? It would easily turn into a gun control debate. Is your head so far up your ass that you can't see that? So what your thread title was supposed to read as was: "Other than the Second,which is off limits to conversation,what parts of the Constitution should we chip away at " Now if that had been the thread you had gone with than I would be guilty of derailing,but it's not so I'm not. Deal with it

ExiledTyrant -> RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? (12/29/2014 1:36:23 PM)
~FR We should do away with that part that does not allow us to have a hunting season for people. The nicer the guy, the lower the cost of the tag, the bigger the asshole, the more opportunity for free tags. Solves the asshole crisis and over population. Jus sayin On a side note, I shall be off sailing in the deep blue when that particular season rolls around.

BamaD -> RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? (12/29/2014 1:36:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u How would discussing the second be a derailment ? The fucking thread asks the question ? Is your head so far up your ass that you can't see that ? It would easily turn into a gun control debate. Is your head so far up your ass that you can't see that? So what your thread title was supposed to read as was: "Other than the Second,which is off limits to conversation,what parts of the Constitution should we chip away at " Now if that had been the thread you had gone with than I would be guilty of derailing,but it's not so I'm not. Deal with it No it is about the backdoor changing of the constitution, not getting bogged down in debating any one issue. Everyone knows how evil you think gun owners are so you have made your point. You have also made t clear that you are in favor of undermining the 2nd. What other parts of the Constitution do you want to get rid of.

slvemike4u -> RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? (12/29/2014 1:45:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u How would discussing the second be a derailment ? The fucking thread asks the question ? Is your head so far up your ass that you can't see that ? It would easily turn into a gun control debate. Is your head so far up your ass that you can't see that? So what your thread title was supposed to read as was: "Other than the Second,which is off limits to conversation,what parts of the Constitution should we chip away at " Now if that had been the thread you had gone with than I would be guilty of derailing,but it's not so I'm not. Deal with it No it is about the backdoor changing of the constitution, not getting bogged down in debating any one issue. Everyone knows how evil you think gun owners are so you have made your point. You have also made t clear that you are in favor of undermining the 2nd. What other parts of the Constitution do you want to get rid of. So I'm supposed to engage ,with you,in a conversation wherein you tell me where I am,and am not,allowed to go ? You really see me agreeing to that ? Allowing you to define my positions ? I'll pass Let me know when you have the balls or the intellect,to defend your positions.....I do a good enough job in defending mine,without your input.

BamaD -> RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? (12/29/2014 2:11:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u How would discussing the second be a derailment ? The fucking thread asks the question ? Is your head so far up your ass that you can't see that ? It would easily turn into a gun control debate. Is your head so far up your ass that you can't see that? So what your thread title was supposed to read as was: "Other than the Second,which is off limits to conversation,what parts of the Constitution should we chip away at " Now if that had been the thread you had gone with than I would be guilty of derailing,but it's not so I'm not. Deal with it No it is about the backdoor changing of the constitution, not getting bogged down in debating any one issue. Everyone knows how evil you think gun owners are so you have made your point. You have also made t clear that you are in favor of undermining the 2nd. What other parts of the Constitution do you want to get rid of. So I'm supposed to engage ,with you,in a conversation wherein you tell me where I am,and am not,allowed to go ? You really see me agreeing to that ? Allowing you to define my positions ? I'll pass Let me know when you have the balls or the intellect,to defend your positions.....I do a good enough job in defending mine,without your input. You want to debate gun control policy start a thread on that. This is about stealth changes to the constitution which is broader than any one issue.

slvemike4u -> RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? (12/29/2014 2:13:21 PM)
I don't need to....see the question asked in your title. You just started one for me [:)]

BamaD -> RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? (12/29/2014 2:44:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u I don't need to....see the question asked in your title. You just started one for me [:)] Since you are too lazy to start the gun thread I just started one for you.

Musicmystery -> RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? (12/29/2014 3:00:27 PM)
Well, Justice Stevens thinks six amendments should be altered, and at the top of his list is the Second Amendment. Why can't it be on Mike's? 1) No, he's not -- that's you wanting only opinions that you like. 2) The 2nd Amendment doesn't need to be repealed -- it needs updated language so that the NRA can stop pretending it says something else. Justice Stevens retired in 2010 at the end of the second-longest tenure in Supreme Court history. (The only justice to serve longer is the one he replaced in 1975, William Douglas, with 36 years). Now Justice Stevens has written a book on the Constitution called Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution. The title says it all. One of the amendments Justice Stevens would like to change is the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment reads, “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Justice Stevens believes five words should be added. He would like to add “when serving in the militia,” so the last part would read, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed.”

mnottertail -> RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? (12/29/2014 3:02:29 PM)
A great number would like to chip away at the 24th amendment, but I would like to see it upheld. See, 1, 2, 15, whatever, the bill of rights is only the first 10 amendments, none more important than the other and none from the 11th on of lesser import.

Politesub53 -> RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? (12/29/2014 4:26:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u How would discussing the second be a derailment ? The fucking thread asks the question ? Is your head so far up your ass that you can't see that ? Yep this was the question. "What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at?" Mikes question is only wrong if the 2nd amendment isnt part of the Constitution. Maybe the "We" in the thread title was generic for "No lefties, no furriners including Brits"

cloudboy -> RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? (12/29/2014 5:30:29 PM)
The top ten most populous states should have at least three Senators. Terms of the House of Representatives should be increased to six years. A simple majority should control Senate votes. Supreme Court Justices should serve for 20 year periods and be pushed out thereafter. Washington DC should have two Senators and apportioned representatives in the House. Media Organizations should not be allowed to propagate false and misleading information. Election rules for public office may include ethical and financial considerations to guard against corruption and undue monied interests compromising elected officials.

Hillwilliam -> RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? (12/29/2014 5:44:01 PM)
Unfortunately, some people who see themselves as "Conservatives" feel that the constitution begins and ends at the second and all those who believe in the rest are "Leftists" I disagree. Keep the whole damn thing if you consider yourself conservative.

BamaD -> RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? (12/29/2014 9:25:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy The top ten most populous states should have at least three Senators. Terms of the House of Representatives should be increased to six years. A simple majority should control Senate votes. Supreme Court Justices should serve for 20 year periods and be pushed out thereafter. Washington DC should have two Senators and apportioned representatives in the House. Media Organizations should not be allowed to propagate false and misleading information. Election rules for public office may include ethical and financial considerations to guard against corruption and undue monied interests compromising elected officials. You clearly have no concept of what the senate is supposed to be. And DC can't have senators it isn't a state, or didn't you know that?

BamaD -> RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? (12/29/2014 9:26:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Unfortunately, some people who see themselves as "Conservatives" feel that the constitution begins and ends at the second and all those who believe in the rest are "Leftists" I disagree. Keep the whole damn thing if you consider yourself conservative. I agree with you, if you weaken one part you weaken the whole thing.

DemonicGynoid -> RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? (12/29/2014 9:27:10 PM)
We should think about this VERY carefully, because if we can chip away one part, we can do it to another, like, the 1st amendment, like removing freedom of speech.

DaddySatyr -> RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? (12/29/2014 9:30:38 PM)
I believe that Washington D.C. has one or two "representatives-at-large". That is people that can be heard on the floor but they cannot vote. The Senate was designed to be an "equalizer" so that larger states (population) didn't rule the roost over smaller states. Res ipsa loquitor. Michael

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875