RNC - Comment Thread

So what is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Should we just throw it out the window since were supposedly aren't using it anymore? I don't understand what you are trying to say.

The Constitution has been with us for 220 years, and it is the foundation of all law and government. The Bill of Rights has been with us for almost 217 years, and it limits the power of the federal government, protecting the rights of all citizens, residents and visitors on US territory.

Go ahead, bring these documents into the 21st century, but don't take them away from me.

How do you think you could update the Second Amendment? I'm not being sarcastic. It's just a question.
 
Another thing...

The less government the better. I don't want the government watching my every move. I also don't want my ass whiped when I'm old.
 
The Republicans saying less govt is BS!! In McCain's speech on thurs he said government shouldn't make our decisions for us and you sit here and say you don't want govt watching your every move. Yet they/you have the nerve to then say it is there right to make a families/womens decision for them on abortion even in the case or rape/abuse. That is pretty hypocritical if you ask me!!!
 
And I respect that because it is a situation that no one knows how they will handle until they are in it. But don't you find it frightening that if McCain/Palin are put in office they will put judges in the Supreme Court who will over turn Roe vs Wade and take that choice from the people and put it directly in the hands of govt.
 
I'm not worried about it at all. Adoption is always an option, but there are so many kids in foster homes already. I'm really undecided, but I would rather have them in office rather than Obama and Biden. Obama and Biden scare me more than anything.
 
Basically an argument for Living constitution vs Original Intent. If you still don't understand well, yes, go ahead now. google it.
 
Most retarded line in human history

in CIVILIZED human history, there have been governments in place to make sure people dont go around killing each other, raping the women.. and acting like the fucking animals we are..

If you want to be an anarchist, go to africa and live with the lions and shit... the end.
 
no, there was some truth to what she said and i'm not conservative at all. although we can't do without government altogether, currently, our government is way too big and ineffective. it needs to be downsized and re-organized.

no gov't = all bad

small gov't = good

the gov't needs to stop snooping into it's citizen's lives and let them be.
 
yes, but heres the thing..

when a gunman goes to a school and shoots up some students.. people have an outcry for more regulation..

when 911 happened.. people had an outcry for more regulation...

when the great depression hit, people had an outcry for more regulation...

whenever something happens, people cry for more regulation on things...

At least I think thats what you're on about..

Unless of course, you're talking about less representation... in which I disagree with, because I live in California... which has the most representation in congress haha.
 
That's exactly was I was going on about. Thanks.

We need increased border security is what we need, and not just that Mexican border.
 
actually Im not sure Ive ever seen you say why they "scare you." you usually just bitch about ur parents money and your gun.
 
I put the second amendment right up there with the first amendment and the rest of them too. Slavery was never a constitutional right, it was put as a states right because some of the founders who truly wished to abolish slavery figured that making it a states right would eventually lead to the end of it. Slavery would probably have been gone not long after the civil war if it had never happened because of advances in technology. I think slavery is probably man kinds biggest embarrassment, my favorite "founder" Thomas Paine was one of the first major authors in america to oppose slavery. Burning people as punishment for witch craft is completely unconstitutional under our 8th amendment. Bush doesn't care about our 8th amendment when he waterboards people though. Neither party gives much respect to our rights in the constitution. I

don't think the constitution is perfect but it is better than what we

have now.

I don't agree with our current foreign policy. Bush ran in 2000 on a humble foreign policy condemning clinton for nation building and 2003 rolls along and look what we have been doing for 5 years.
 
I believe in circle theory. No government and total government have the same result; oligarchy. If we had less people and less technology government would be unnecessary. Basically if we lived like the indians before the white kids got to america. But that is never going to happen so we need some government to insure that peoples rights are protected. The main purpose of government should IMO be to protect and maximize the rights of the individual. I don't mean letting the owner of corporation dump AIDS into the ocean or some shit like that but allowing people to do as they please as long as it doesn't interfere in anyone elses rights and to have fewer regulations on business. I think working people deserve a living wage so a minimum wage law is necessary to insure that the working man isn't getting fucked over. That's my opinion on government but that might not be the best in practice. I really don't know but I can't think of one really trying it right now(don't say somalia or some shit because that country has nothing in common with my idea)

Also getting rid of regulations regarding things like adults wearing seat belts and doing ectasy will cut wasteful spending and wasted time used by police and maximize man kinds darwinistic potential.

 
Let me clarify that I think driving without a seat belt while doing ectasy or basically being shelled should be illegal because there is a great chance you will hurt someone else.
 
I'm saying you're cherry-picking the values you want from the founding fathers. Either they were right about all of their values, including slavery and not giving women the right to vote, or they are wrong and we must be cautious of their values.

Updating the second amendment... I dont know. I think its a good idea for the people to be able to rise up against their government, and I think thats what the real intent of that amendment was. An alternative option could instead just be to give everyone in the US remote control keys that activate nuclear bombs in our capitol if the majority thinks shits going down the tube. I really have no idea on this matter, my main point was about your founding fathers argument.

 
Slavery and women not having the right to vote were normal at the time. Slavery was abolished in 1865, and then women's suffrage was in 1920. I don't have a problem with adding things, just as long as I (the people) have a say in it.
 
thank you. you just told us history. so were allowed to change those things but not gun rights?

your not really making a point there
 
The Constitution never says that women can't vote, and the right to own slaves was never a part of our constitution.

How could you possibly change the Second Amendment?
 
to adapt it for the fact that people are no longer running around with muskets, and the feasibility of overthrowing the government with guns is pretty rediculous. they are pretty much mostly used for killing innocent people. so why not eliminate handguns from that right to bear.

now wait, your gonna tell me you want yours for that tiny possibility you need it to protect yourself, regardless of the even tinier possibility that you would be able to use it properly
 
Perhaps reword it to say something along the lines of "people have a right to rise up against the government"?
 
With what? Pokemon?

"Prepare for trouble.

And make it double.

To protect the world from devastation.

To unite all people within our nation.

To denounce the evils of truth and love.

To extend our reach to the stars above.

Jessie.

James.

Team Rocket blasting off at the speed of light.

Surrender now or prepare to fight.

Meowth. That's right."

It would be impossible to get rid of guns because people will still have them, especially bad people. So what will I do to fight off or protect myself those bad people? A stick? Guns will never go away, but if you ban guns then their will only be guns in the hands of bad people.
 
What about joe bob who goes out to the gun show, buys a bunch of cheap hand guns and then goes into the city and sells them to hood rats for dirt cheap. you eliminate hand guns you eliminate that aspect. alot of gang guns arent shipped overseas illegally, they were purchased legally at one point.

regardless your whole defense thing is rediculous. chances are by the time you knew you needed a gun it would be too late. unless you wanna start whipping out your peice everytime some guy on the street approaches you.
 
You can not eliminate my right to own a gun. Illegal guns are not the problem, it's the people owning the guns. There are no bad guns, just bad people with guns. You just can't take guns out because that's just physically impossible. Also, guns don't die, meaning they last a realllllllyyyy long time. They are still going to circulate to bad people. So if the good people can't have guns what are the good people going to do against these bad people with guns? Call the cops?

 
So your point is that if we simply hadn't made people think they needed guns as a god given right, and simply regulated their distribution from the start, we wouldn't be in this mess? I'm glad to see you're still standing for an amendment that seems to have backfired.

And yeah, the cops would be one of those entities I'd call. They have guns, and, like, authority and stuff.
 
people will do the exact same thing they do in england WHERE THEY DONT HAVE GUNS. do you see criminals there running around killing people with no consequences? nope, in fact they have far less gun deaths than we do. yeah people should call the cops because they are the ones that have had the training to make the decision whether or not you can shoot at someone. id rather have them call the cops than you whipping out a gun and shooting at some guy you think is a threat.

a) its not your responsibility to kill him

b) if your in public, what about when you miss and take out some pedestrian

c) before you claim you want it to protect your home, a responsible gun owner would keep it locked up somewhere. so when your getting robbed your gonna sneak off, open the case its in, load it, and kill they guy without him noticing? i dont think so.

and bad people with guns.

what about morons like kids that grab guns from their parents and go shoot up schools, again, no legal guns, no guns for the kids to take.

Not to mention i dont understand your whole addiction to guns in the first place. Lotsa hood rats to shoot at in florida? dont think so.

 
I just hope she never comes to Berkeley with her gun...

the tree sitters will throw bottles of piss at her haha.
 
If you take good peoples guns away the crime rate is just going to rise like no tomorrow.

Sorry, but I'm not going to wait for a cop in some situations. Say if someone is going to try to break into my house, I'm pretty sure that once they see my steel that they will turn around...then I'll call the cops. If I am in a mall parking lot with people around I will scream my bloody head off so people will notice me, whip 'er out and then hopefully something good might come out of it. I'm not going to fire just because I got scared for a second. I'm not stupid. I have common sense, and I don't want to hurt others around me. But honestly, waiting for a cop is the worst. I want to be in as much control of the situation as I can be.

If you have a concealed weapons permit and your guns are registered then you have the authority.
 
a) under situations like those, people freak out and do stupid shit.

b) you never answered how your gonna get to your responsibly kept gun when someones robbing you.

and you still have never explained how the crime rate is going to rise like no tomorrow. do you see tons of vigilantes out there now taking out all the bad guys with their concealed weapons.... NO
 
Says fucking who? Did you get your authority on a mandate from the masses? You don't become God when you have the ability to kill people with impunity, you're one step closer to a deranged psychopath.
 
jesus christ how the hell does every damn political thread turn into a "guns" argument with aspendukes
 
because if it were up to her everyone could walk around with an ak in their bag for "protection".

Dont take her rights!!!!

Just screw habeus corpus the right to privacy, oh and anyone we suspect of terrorism, fuck a real trial, just kill em
 
Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%.

In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim."

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

 
duh its not gonna work when you shut down one state in a nation. you need to ban them across the nation.
 
i read it just fine. the 200% clearly would be because criminals could still get guns just fine outside the district. the 12% could have been due to anything, thanks to the fact that that is a huuuge span of time. perhaps it was the prevelance of more guns legally in the rest of the country, or an increase in gang activity, or the emergence of new drugs. who knows?
 
with a nationwide ban or strict control like england or canada. the ammount of deaths has steadily declined. as well, another issue you havent addressed.

you spit me a statistic from one district, and a quite possibly unrelated statistic with hundreds of other variables the two most likely having nothing to do with one and other
 
Right-to-carry laws require law enforcement agencies to issue handgun permits to all qualified applicants. Qualifications include criteria such as age, a clean criminal record, and completing a firearm safety course.

Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:

Florida

United States

homicide rate

-36%

-0.4%

firearm homicide rate

-37%

+15%

handgun homicide rate

-41%

+24%

Read this too... http://www.moccw.org/ccwfacts.html

40 states have the "right-to-carry" law.
 
again your missing the point. im not talking about right to carry laws. im talking about a total or near total ban.
 
Fact: Gun control has done nothing to keep crime rates from rising in many of the nations that have imposed severe firearms restrictions.

* Australia: Readers of the USA Today newspaper discovered in 2002 that, "Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%."2

* Canada: After enacting stringent gun control laws in 1991 and 1995, Canada has not made its citizens any safer. "The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic," says Canadian criminologist Gary Mauser in 2003. "Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted." 3

* England: According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997.4

* Japan: One newspaper headline says it all: Police say "Crime rising in Japan, while arrests at record low."5

2 Dr. John R. Lott, Jr., "Gun laws don't reduce crime," USA Today (May 9, 2002). See also Rhett Watson and Matthew Bayley, "Gun crime up 40pc since Port Arthur," The Daily Telegraph (April 28, 2002).

3 Gary A. Mauser, "The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales," Public Policy Sources (The Fraser Institute, November 2003), no. 71:4. This study can be accessed at http://www.fraserinstitute.org/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=604.

4 "Handgun crime 'up' despite ban," BBC News Online (July 16, 2001) at http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/uk/newsid_1440000/1440764.stm. England is a prime example of how crime has increased after implementing gun control. For example, the original Pistols Act of 1903 did not stop murders from increasing on the island. The number of murders in England was 68 percent higher the year after the ban's enactment (1904) as opposed to the year before (1902). (Greenwood, supra note 1.) This was not an aberration, as almost seven decades later, firearms crimes in the U.K. were still on the rise: the number of cases where firearms were used or carried in a crime skyrocketed almost 1,000 percent from 1946 through 1969. (Greenwood, supra note 1 at 158.) And by 1996, the murder rate in England was 132 percent higher than it had been before the original gun ban of 1903 was enacted. (Compare Greenwood, supra note 1, with Bureau of Justice Statistics, Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96, Bureau of Justice Statistics, October 1998).

5 "Crime rising in Japan, while arrests at record low: police," AFP News (August 3, 2001); "A crime wave alarms Japan, once gun-free," The Philadelphia Inquirer, 11 July 1992.

I'm doing this while doing homework too, and I don't feel like rephrasing everything.
 
i think Switzerland has the lowest crime rate in the world and you can legally own automatic weapons there.
 
They also have universal heathcare. I mean as long as we're going to speculate and not actually prove a correlation...

I think that the US murder rate is a combination of mindset and access to weapons. We can try to change either, but as shown in this thread, its hard to get Americans to change their minds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top