Constitutional Convention - What to put in it?

[Fx51LP308]

Say, theoretically, we are able to take back all three branches of govt. in 2024 and have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate (I know... Herculean effort). But if it did happen, would this not be the perfect time for a "Constitutional Convention" to make some significant amendments happen. And, I believe we have enough states to ratify most of these, so it's a matter of getting them through the convention part. What would you want to see them tackle?

For me, the following:

1) Fix the count of SCOTUS Justices at the present level, 9, and not allow the court to be "packed." Re-affirm the "Appointment for life" for all justices unless they choose to retire or are impeached, tried and convicted.

2) Clarify the 2nd Amendment as follows:

The right of the "People" to keep and bear arms as outlined in the 2nd Article of Amendment is an individual right and applies equally to each and every law abiding US Citizen. No US citizen shall be denied that right unless convicted of a violent felony or adjudicated mentally incapable of possessing arms by a competent Court of law. In either case, the person denied that right will, after a period of time after release from incarceration or mental recovery (10 years), be eligible to apply for reinstatement of those rights. "Arms," as defined in this amendment include any/all "conventional" handheld firearm devices, parts, and accessories that can be attached to them. No Federal, state or municipal Govt. shall deny any Law abiding US Citizen the right to construct, possess & utilize any such weapons/devices, as long as they are not "prohibited persons" per the above and as long as the weapons are used for "lawful" purposes.

3) An amendment formally prohibiting the US, State and/or local govts. from confiscating a US Citizen's property (temporarily or permanently) without a formal trial or hearing at which both parties are present (ie. not "Ex Parte") and at which the forfeiture of that property is a component of the sentence or judgement, after the final adjudication at that trial/hearing. If held temporarily (as evidence), the subject has the right to recover that property and to sue the govt, for damages, should that property be unrecoverable or damaged while held as evidence. The US Citizen has an absolute right to a formal accounting by the govt. of what was taken, temporarily or otherwise as an aide to recovery, should the court rule in the citizen's favor. {Hopefully, this covers Red-Flag law confiscations and Civil Asset Forfeitures}.



What amendments would you like to see at the next Constitutional Convention, if we could get one convened?

 

[BuildingConceptsllc]

Are you talking about a Convention of the States? We don't need a 2/3 majority in congress for that but we would need a 3/4 majority of state legislators if we did not have 2/3 of congress. Here are the 4 ways a convention of the states can add or change the constitution.

(1) Proposal by two-thirds of each house of Congress, followed by ratification by popular conventions in each state. This method was used to adopt the 21st Amendment, repealing Prohibition.

(2) Proposal by two-thirds of each house of Congress, then ratification by state legislatures. This method was used for the other amendments.

(3) Proposal by a “Convention for proposing Amendments,” then ratification by popular conventions in each state.

(4) Proposal by a “Convention for proposing Amendments,” then ratification by state legislatures.

 

[jetjock07]

Wouldn’t happen because they would be voting themselves out of office.

Term Limits for Congress and Senate.

Max years allowed to serve in Congress or Senate, 12 years total, consecutive or not. Only way to serve longer would to be voted to a higher position within federal government, ie. Senate, VP, POTUS. Max allowed time to serve in congress then senate would be 20 years total between the two. Beyond that only other office allowed to be held would be Vice President or President of US. Max time any one person could potentially be at the federal level would be 36 years.

 

[wade2big]

If the democrats don’t have control, the republicans do. Either way we lose as neither of them are “we” regardless of all the wishful or more accurately, lack of thinking.

 

[Fx51LP308]

Are you talking about a Convention of the States? We don't need a 2/3 majority in congress for that but we would need a 3/4 majority of state legislators if we did not have 2/3 of congress. Here are the 4 ways a convention of the states can add or change the constitution.

(1) Proposal by two-thirds of each house of Congress, followed by ratification by popular conventions in each state. This method was used to adopt the 21st Amendment, repealing Prohibition.

(2) Proposal by two-thirds of each house of Congress, then ratification by state legislatures. This method was used for the other amendments.

(3) Proposal by a “Convention for proposing Amendments,” then ratification by popular conventions in each state.

(4) Proposal by a “Convention for proposing Amendments,” then ratification by state legislatures.

Either (3) or (4) above. And I believe we do have a 75% quorum of ratifying states for the amendments I propose

 

[n2ishun]

Someone has to fire Ketanji Shaneequah Lashonda Brown Black Jackson.

Amirite ?

 

[Fx51LP308]

Wouldn’t happen because they would be voting themselves out of office.

Term Limits for Congress and Senate.

Max years allowed to serve in Congress or Senate, 12 years total, consecutive or not. Only way to serve longer would to be voted to a higher position within federal government, ie. Senate, VP, POTUS. Max allowed time to serve in congress then senate would be 20 years total between the two. Beyond that only other office allowed to be held would be Vice President or President of US. Max time any one person could potentially be at the federal level would be 36 years.

I get what you're saying and why. I absolutely do. But the problem we always face with Term Limits is, "Are we going from the frying pan into the fire?" Will the people we are then forced to elect to replace those who are term limited going to be even worse than those who had to leave because of term limits? How many people out there are qualified to run a govt. the size of ours? Or serve in legislatures our size? Or have the temperament to not go "cray cray" and impose Martial law and become dictators? Sometimes, the Devil you know, beats the Devil you don't.

 

[BuildingConceptsllc]

I get what you're saying and why. I absolutely do. But the problem we always face with Term Limits is, "Are we going from the frying pan into the fire?" Will the people we are then forced to elect to replace those who are term limited going to be even worse than those who had to leave because of term limits? How many people out there are qualified to run a govt. the size of ours? Or serve in legislatures our size? Or have the temperament to not go "cray cray" and impose Martial law and become dictators? Sometimes, the Devil you know, beats the Devil you don't.

I think there is plenty of people qualified to spend other people's money.

Term limits can be done, you'd just need to exempt current reps to do it. Do that, and it could be passed with a gop controlled congress. I don't think the dems will pass anything worth while no matter what and definitely not anything that removes power. They are the most power hungry group ever, which is saying something

 

[Fx51LP308]

I think there is plenty of people qualified to spend other people's money.

Term limits can be done, you'd just need to exempt current reps to do it. Do that, and it could be passed with a gop controlled congress. I don't think the dems will pass anything worth while no matter what and definitely not anything that removes power. They are the most power hungry group ever, which is saying something

Hence, the proposal for a Constitutional Convention of States....

 

[CMH]

Either (3) or (4) above. And I believe we do have a 75% quorum of ratifying states for the amendments I propose

In what world do you think there is support in 75% of the states for the proposed amendments?

 

[pmclaine]

You are asking for things already in the Constitution.

The problem is education and the communist propaganda that claims otherwise.

 

[Fx51LP308]

You are asking for things already in the Constitution.

The problem is education and the communist propaganda that claims otherwise.

And they (commies) get away with it because the Constitution doesn't make it clear. My proposed amendment would make it absolutely clear. Hence, "Clarify" the 2nd amendment. Same thing with "deprivation of property." It's in the 5th and 14th amendments. But, yet, it's still being done because govts think they can get away with it. My amendment(s) would make it clear that they can't, and that they'd face punishments for trying to./

 

[roostercogburn98]

Fill it with whoever you think? Most things won’t change cause they have all gotten used to making money in those positions. Sorry, just don’t see anyone currently running for political office doing it for “the people”

 

[DarnYankeeUSMC]

Instead of adding anything we remove a bunch of the additions that have been added? Starting with the female vote and elected senators

 

[E. Bryant]

Thinking that any reasonably-foreseeable assembly of modern Republicans (or even "conservative thinkers", if you will) could modify the Constitution in a manner that improves upon the current one has got to be the most smooth-brained take possible.

We don't have a problem with the Constitution. We have a problem with implementation and enforcement.

 

[UNRL Ghandi]

There is no form of government that man cannot corrupt.

Everyone on this forum knows that language as clear as "shall not be infringed" still isn't clear enough to keep that right protected.

 

[Fx51LP308]

There is no form of government that man cannot corrupt.

Everyone on this forum knows that language as clear as "shall not be infringed" still isn't clear enough to keep that right protected.

I agree with you that language such as "shall not be infringed" is perfectly clear. But that part before it that goes "A Well regulated Militia..." is what kinda muddies it up. And the antis are counting on things like that to push their agenda that RKBA is not an individual right. The Constitution needs to state in an explicitly clear manner that it is an "individual" right. State it "stupidly" clear such that stupid people can get it. Yeah, I know... Some people so FAS (Farm Animal Stupid) won't ever get it, especially when they have an agenda to uphold, But we do our due diligence.

 

[taliv]

Most of our problems would be solved by the following

1 all law enforcement is reserved to the states. No federal employees may be armed.

2 all tax collection is reserved to the states. All federal funding to be supplied by the states

3 all laws sunset in 10 years. And must be renewed individually

4 no person may vote in any election if they receive any money from the government

5 if the gov fails to perform any fundamental duty of the gov, the right of citizens to act in their own interest and volition, individually or otherwise, will not be infringed

 

[Gunfighter14e2]

The states single national electoral vote, should be based upon the electoral votes of the county's w/in that state. Each county gets a single vote no matter the population count. Each state gets a single vote, no matter its population count.

No one on public assistance is allowed to vote & once off that tit, you have to be off of it for 5 years before you are allowed to vote again. Having children out of wedlock & you both serve 300 hrs of community service, on a chain gang.


Any & all weapons the military has, bar NBC items, can be owned by citizens able to vote.

The minimum legal age for military service, is the same age one is considered an adult, affording all rights & privileges thereof. If you are old enough to die for your country, you are old enough for everything else.

Politicians caught lying will be hung.
There would be no campaign funding allowed & if caught making bank from insider trading, the rope awaits.

 

[Ronws]

You are still getting the 2nd amendment wrong. You have a limitation there based on criminal conviction. That simply means you are letting the government decide who or who may not have a gun. And criminals don't care about not being allowed to carry because they have a felony conviction. So, get rid of that because the only thing any gun law does is disarm good people.

Period, paragraph, end of book, forever, amen.

 

[Fx51LP308]

Most of our problems would be solved by the following


4 no person may vote in any election if they receive any money from the government

5 if the gov fails to perform any fundamental duty of the gov, the right of citizens to act in their own interest and volition, individually or otherwise, will not be infringed

Uhhhhh, Social Security???

 

[taliv]

Uhhhhh, Social Security???

That’s your money they’re returning but we do need to shut that down.

(I assume it’s your money. If you paid it in you’re gtg. If you receive a dime more than you put in, no voting for you)

 

[Fx51LP308]

That’s your money they’re returning but we do need to shut that down.

(I assume it’s your money. If you paid it in you’re gtg. If you receive a dime more than you put in, no voting for you)

I think I'm still GTG in terms of what I put in (ie. "Principal"). Still, there is the issue of "interest" on that principal (while my money was "on loan" to the govt.) and what that's worth. Trust me, if I were ever to hit the Zillion $ Lotto, I would cancel my Soc. Security retirement benefit, once I recouped all my "principal." I'd do it before they could do it to me.

 

[Laser1]

Balanced Budget every year....no entitlements

 

[Newlongrange]

Most of our problems would be solved by the following

1 all law enforcement is reserved to the states. No federal employees may be armed.

2 all tax collection is reserved to the states. All federal funding to be supplied by the states

3 all laws sunset in 10 years. And must be renewed individually

4 no person may vote in any election if they receive any money from the government

5 if the gov fails to perform any fundamental duty of the gov, the right of citizens to act in their own interest and volition, individually or otherwise, will not be infringed

Dam number 4 leaves me out. Was on food stamps and HEAP for a few months when I could barely stand and walk while waiting on a meneires diagnosis.

I promise I’ve been a productive member of society since

 

[cnwrobb]

All federal agencies use one language (English) on all forms

All citizens required to read and speak English

 

[wade2big]

Thinking that any reasonably-foreseeable assembly of modern Republicans (or even "conservative thinkers", if you will) could modify the Constitution in a manner that improves upon the current one has got to be the most smooth-brained take possible.

We don't have a problem with the Constitution. We have a problem with implementation and enforcement.

The constitution is working as designed. It was implemented from the start to create a much stronger centralized power in order for the fat cats to control the working man. It was constructed to rob the states of financial resources to cause the state/local gov’ts to be beholden to the fed.

Read the anti-federalist papers and the men of the day predicted what this gov’t would become almost like they had a crystal ball. The constitution isn’t the sacred text people are led to believe. Everything that has come to be since the adoption of the constitution was because of it, the good and certainly the bad. When the US falls, hopefully those that attempt to rebuild, discard this document altogether and try again.

 

[Gunfighter14e2]

You are still getting the 2nd amendment wrong. You have a limitation there based on criminal conviction. That simply means you are letting the government decide who or who may not have a gun. And criminals don't care about not being allowed to carry because they have a felony conviction. So, get rid of that because the only thing any gun law does is disarm good people.

Period, paragraph, end of book, forever, amen.

Unlike many I am not a one issue voter. You try to fuck over the system or others, the system or others will fuck over you.

 

[hlee]

Smells like bleach in here. I’m out.

 

[taliv]

Dam number 4 leaves me out. Was on food stamps and HEAP for a few months when I could barely stand and walk while waiting on a meneires diagnosis.

I promise I’ve been a productive member of society since

I’m not judging or even saying food stamps and unemployment are bad. I’ve been laid off and taken unemployment before.

I’m saying morally, if everyone votes to give someone something, that’s fine. If someone votes to take it at gunpoint (which is what eventually happens to people who don’t pay their taxes) that’s theft. It’s simply not right to allow people to vote to transfer wealth from others to themselves. And history has proven that’s what makes democracies unsustainable.

 

[W54/XM-388]

Having children out of wedlock & you both serve 300 hrs of community service, on a chain gang.

Sorry but I can't agree ever with going back to the truly horrible and rotten days of the government harshly and viciously punishing people for things based on the high and mighty self righteous ideas of those truly hateful "moral" types.

What business it of yours what marital status someone has?
NONE

All you need to do is simply go back to the basics where there was no right to public charity, and instead all charity and social assistance was handled by private groups or religious groups.

That is the problem that "good folks" always do, they get all high and mighty and want to forge chains for others that they think are "beneath them" and instead wind up giving the government power to enslave themselves?

What you are actually asking is you are demanding the government get men with guns to go kidnap people and force them to be slaves in horrific conditions (apparently you are spiteful enough you want really bad conditions for them) because they didn't happen to follow your specific version of what you think is right.

What happens when someone says, well I think you shouldn't be allowed to do xxx that I think is a vice and we need to send men with guns to go kidnap and brutalize and enslave you?

You cannot have freedom if you want the government to oppress others for things you don't like, that don't concern you directly.

That is EXACTLY how we got where we are today!

 

[hlee]

You cannot have freedom if you want the government to oppress others for things you don't like, that don't concern you directly.

That is EXACTLY how we got where we are today!

 

[Docsherm]

Most of our problems would be solved by the following

1 all law enforcement is reserved to the states. No federal employees may be armed. So the US Military will not be armed?

2 all tax collection is reserved to the states. All federal funding to be supplied by the states

3 all laws sunset in 10 years. And must be renewed individually

4 no person may vote in any election if they receive any money from the government

5 if the gov fails to perform any fundamental duty of the gov, the right of citizens to act in their own interest and volition, individually or otherwise, will not be infringed

So those of us in the Military or those of us receiving Military retirement or VA disability can't vote?


Try again........ This is the biggest issue with the US. People that have little to no knowledge talking without thinking it through first.

 

[Camelfilter]

Say, theoretically, we are able to take back all three branches of govt. in 2024 and have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate (I know... Herculean effort). But if it did happen, would this not be the perfect time for a "Constitutional Convention" to make some significant amendments happen. And, I believe we have enough states to ratify most of these, so it's a matter of getting them through the convention part. What would you want to see them tackle?

For me, the following:

1) Fix the count of SCOTUS Justices at the present level, 9, and not allow the court to be "packed." Re-affirm the "Appointment for life" for all justices unless they choose to retire or are impeached, tried and convicted.

2) Clarify the 2nd Amendment as follows:



3) An amendment formally prohibiting the US, State and/or local govts. from confiscating a US Citizen's property (temporarily or permanently) without a formal trial or hearing at which both parties are present (ie. not "Ex Parte") and at which the forfeiture of that property is a component of the sentence or judgement, after the final adjudication at that trial/hearing. If held temporarily (as evidence), the subject has the right to recover that property and to sue the govt, for damages, should that property be unrecoverable or damaged while held as evidence. The US Citizen has an absolute right to a formal accounting by the govt. of what was taken, temporarily or otherwise as an aide to recovery, should the court rule in the citizen's favor. {Hopefully, this covers Red-Flag law confiscations and Civil Asset Forfeitures}.



What amendments would you like to see at the next Constitutional Convention, if we could get one convened?

Sounds good, except your clarification of the 2nd.

My clarification would be no infringement whatsoever, unless incarcerated. Period.

No longer incarcerated? Rights AND privileges as any & every other citizen. All rights AND priveleges. The criminal justice system would require drastic change, including the complete removal of plea bargaining to lesser charges/reduced sentencing.

 

[Gunfighter14e2]

Sorry but I can't agree ever with going back to the truly horrible and rotten days of the government harshly and viciously punishing people for things based on the high and mighty self righteous ideas of those truly hateful "moral" types.

What business it of yours what marital status someone has?
NONE

All you need to do is simply go back to the basics where there was no right to public charity, and instead all charity and social assistance was handled by private groups or religious groups.

That is the problem that "good folks" always do, they get all high and mighty and want to forge chains for others that they think are "beneath them" and instead wind up giving the government power to enslave themselves?

What you are actually asking is you are demanding the government get men with guns to go kidnap people and force them to be slaves in horrific conditions (apparently you are spiteful enough you want really bad conditions for them) because they didn't happen to follow your specific version of what you think is right.

What happens when someone says, well I think you shouldn't be allowed to do xxx that I think is a vice and we need to send men with guns to go kidnap and brutalize and enslave you?

You cannot have freedom if you want the government to oppress others for things you don't like, that don't concern you directly.

That is EXACTLY how we got where we are today!

We are going too,... strongly disagree. People shucking morals, no matter how slight,... is the start of the down hill slide. Having No morals, is one of the issues that is running rampant in this country.

 

[E. Bryant]

We are going too,... strongly disagree. People shucking morals, no matter how slight,... is the start of the down hill slide. Having No morals, is one of the issues that is running rampant in this country.

But that's not something the government can - or should - enforce via laws.

 

[Camelfilter]

But that's not something the government can - or should - enforce via laws.

Societal issue vs legal issue.

The difference between morals & ethics. One unenforceable, the other is.

 

[W54/XM-388]

We are going too,... strongly disagree. People shucking morals, no matter how slight,... is the start of the down hill slide. Having No morals, is one of the issues that is running rampant in this country.

Go back and look at all the things you don't like about the government and their current tyrannical power and oppression and destruction of freedom.
Almost EVERY SINGLE one of them can be traced directly back to "good folks" wanting government oppression of people they didn't agree with.


Morals are between you and God not the government unless they directly impact someone else.
Who decides what these "morals" are that you want people harshly enslaved for
(Ask yourself what your desire for them to be in chain gangs says about your own character and understanding of the nature of the love of Jesus Christ).

The problem with your approach of government oppression and enslavement of people is that it never stops.

Well you hate having kids outside of marriage and want to brutalize and enslave people to make yourself happy... fine...

I don't like people having sex outside of marriage (and how many all those who love to ask "have you ever served" had sex outside of marriage while "serving" or in their youth? So let's put them all in chains and brutalize them...

I don't like people drinking alcohol it's bad for society.... let's get the government to oppress more...
People shouldn't drink coffee or black tea... let's get the government to oppress more...
People shouldn't work on the Sabbath or do things that cause others to work... let's get the government to oppress more...
People shouldn't do drugs or things... let's get the government to oppress more...
People shouldn't look at pictures of the nakedness of others... let's get the government to oppress more...
Men and Women shouldn't dress in a manner that inflames passions of others... let's get the government to oppress more...
People should be being generous to the poor and hungry... let's get the government to oppress more...

People should only be allowed to have "correct" sex with their wives and nothing "abnormal" or "deviant"... let's get the government to oppress more...

People should go to Church... let's get the government to oppress more...
Everybody should learn to follow orders from the government and be slaves to the Global Elites' killing machine and be forced to go kill on command and be killed as fodder, anyone who doesn't like the glorious military machine and our uniform hangers and worship them and send their children to be enslaved and die is evil... let's get the government to oppress more...

It's not nice to say things that hurt people's feelings or that make people feel uncomfortable... let's get the government to oppress more...

Just remember when you are gleefully wanting bad things done to folks who do things that you condemn as "wrongness" somebody is happy to let you make those chains and give them the power to be evil, and will then use that on you.

I know it's not popular but It's pretty much one of the things I try over and over to warn all the stupid good folks about, and they never listen.
Don't give the government power!!!

If you stop supporting and paying for and promoting things you find morally objectionable, then people will have to live with their own morals and choices and the consequences and such and it's on them.

Do you really want this country to become essentially a giant HOA with uniform hangers, guns and slavery and oppression at every turn because "make everybody do what every single group says is right?"

We already are on our way to that.

Wake up from your dreams of lording it over others and think about how to build a country of actual real freedom, you know the kind nobody really seems to want.

Always remember, all the power you give some "government" to enslave others WILL be used against you.
You CANNOT stop that, it is a fact of history that is unchangeable.

 

[W54/XM-388]

So those of us in the Military... can't vote?

Well in Heinlein's book "Starship Troopers" that is like a sacred book to many that worship uniforms he put out a good case for that...
In that Soldiers are supposed to be obedient German "stop thinking and just follow orders" types and shouldn't be voting on decisions that affect them and since the government commands them to do whatever the government wants they shouldn't be allowed to have any say in the government because they are just there to follow orders while "serving"...

This is the problem with all these "let's fix things"
People are too blind to see the horror of a society their "good intentions" will create...

Go back and read the original "Utopia" novel, sounds all fine until you did down and realize it would be a dystopian brutal nightmare society.

 

[Camelfilter]

Well in Heinlein's book "Starship Troopers" that is like a sacred book to many that worship uniforms he put out a good case for that...
In that Soldiers are supposed to be obedient German "stop thinking and just follow orders" types and shouldn't be voting on decisions that affect them and since the government commands them to do whatever the government wants they shouldn't be allowed to have any say in the government because they are just there to follow orders while "serving"...

This is the problem with all these "let's fix things"
People are too blind to see the horror of a society their "good intentions" will create...

Go back and read the original "Utopia" novel, sounds all fine until you did down and realize it would be a dystopian brutal nightmare society.

Ahh, but the only way for citizenship was with service...

 

[Fx51LP308]

Sounds good, except your clarification of the 2nd.

My clarification would be no infringement whatsoever, unless incarcerated. Period.

No longer incarcerated? Rights AND privileges as any & every other citizen. All rights AND priveleges. The criminal justice system would require drastic change, including the complete removal of plea bargaining to lesser charges/reduced sentencing.

So, someone adjudicated "mentally ill" could still posses weapons while still declared mentally ill?

 

[Docsherm]

Ahh, but the only way for citizenship was with service...

Exactly........ So can't vote while in but only those that served honorably can vote. That would actually solve a great deal of problems.

 

[Docsherm]

So, someone adjudicated "mentally ill" could still posses weapons while still declared mentally ill?

Yes, because the standard for mental illness is too broad. So if you are found to post something about gays or tyranny's online and labeled as having transphobia or homophobia....... no guns for you, right? or are you going to have some "expert" in the legal system go through the DSM-5 and pick and choose what mental illnesses can and can not have guns?

 

[Ronws]

The reason in "Starship Troopers" for gaining voting rights through service was precisely because you should have a vested interest in the things being voted on. The idea was stop the free-loader from voting himself bread and circuses.

However, many a person has served and can still get infected with the communist mind virus. Especially after experience in the military, which is a dictatorship, not a democracy or republic.

 

[Gunfighter14e2]

Well in Heinlein's book "Starship Troopers" that is like a sacred book to many that worship uniforms he put out a good case for that...
In that Soldiers are supposed to be obedient German "stop thinking and just follow orders" types and shouldn't be voting on decisions that affect them and since the government commands them to do whatever the government wants they shouldn't be allowed to have any say in the government because they are just there to follow orders while "serving"...

This is the problem with all these "let's fix things"
People are too blind to see the horror of a society their "good intentions" will create...

Go back and read the original "Utopia" novel, sounds all fine until you did down and realize it would be a dystopian brutal nightmare society.

Still strongly disagree. Moral people do not have issues, nor have they thru out history. People w/o morals wanting & doing as they please w/o penalty or controls is how this shit sandwich evolved. Once that type was not rapidly dealt with is how we arrived to this place. Killing is different than murder, in a moral world.

 

[Fx51LP308]

Yes, because the standard for mental illness is too broad. So if you are found to post something about gays or tyranny's online and labeled as having transphobia or homophobia....... no guns for you, right? or are you going to have some "expert" in the legal system go through the DSM-5 and pick and choose what mental illnesses can and can not have guns?

My criteria would be, "whoever poses a danger to themselves or others by possessing (and potentially using) these weapons." Someone who hates LGBTQs is one thing. But it the hate is so strong that they feel the need to go out and kill LGBTQs on site because of who they are (or profess they want to on social media), that's a problem.

 

[Docsherm]

My criteria would be, "whoever poses a danger to themselves or others by possessing (and potentially using) these weapons." Someone who hates LGBTQs is one thing. But it the hate is so strong that they feel the need to go out and kill LGBTQs on site because of who they are (or profess they want to on social media), that's a problem.

So take guns away from people that commit a crime............... that has nothing to do with mental illness.

 

[W54/XM-388]

Still strongly disagree. Moral people do not have issues, nor have they thru out history. People w/o morals wanting & doing as they please w/o penalty or controls is how this shit sandwich evolved. Once that type was not rapidly dealt with is how we arrived to this place. Killing is different than murder, in a moral world.

So, let's go with your idea for point of discussion.
You laid down your marker that you want to see "fallen women" in chains
Let's say for the sake of discussion, fine, have it your way.

What other morals are we going to be putting people in chains for?

Who gets to decide?

Where does it stop?

Do we essentially go back to the days of the holy roman empire where whatever the Catholic Church said was wrong was punished by the government?
Do we become essentially Iran and Saudi Arabia with the all powerful "morality police" running around unchecked?

So as a serious question, what is your response to that?

Because I'll bet a lot of folks on this site here including a lot that think they are "good folks" would be joining the "fallen women" you hate, in the same chains, for a host of other "immoral things".


So what's your plan?

 

[W54/XM-388]

Ahh, but the only way for citizenship was with service...

Yes, so if you happened to survive and make it out alive, once you were all done then yes you could vote in your old age if you ever got there.

 

[higginsworksforme]

Make Long Chile happen.