As you can see, it actually makes the situation even worse in CA, as a new and more progressive batch of people is replacing the term-limited ones every election...
Back to the OP topic: I guess I'm not the only one who literally day dreams and pretends I go back in time and tell the Founding Fathers what happens!
My humble suggestions:
Bill of Rights is written into the Constitution itself as Articles, not Amendments.
Term limits (California sucks, but overall I think it's a good idea) (3 terms for the House, 2 terms for Senators??)
Term limits for the Supreme Court (10 Years? 15 Years perhaps?)
Congress is a non-paying job! (Back in the day, you had farmers, lawyers, doctors, etc. volunteering to be in Congress, while in session. Then they went back to their ACTUAL LIFE and ACTUAL JOB.
Government employees' pay is tied to some sort of median income of the entire US.
NO INCOME TAXES - Hardwired into the Constitution and no Amendment can undo it.
NO CENTRAL BANK (Federal Reserve) - Hardwired; cannot be undone!
FOIA (Freedom of Information Act is hardwired into Constitution. Obviously there are some things that need to be sensitive, classified, etc., but the People should be able to know anything about those they elected. (Where did those Senators make their tens of millions of dollars?!?!?!)
Further clarify what a "natural born citizen" is!! (no anchor babies!) Mom and Dad have to be REAL U.S. citizens!
Shit, while we're at it, maybe we need to say that you have to me a Male or Female. No non-binary B.S. (Can you imagine what any of the people from the 18th Century would think about this shit?)
NO DUAL CITIZENSHIP, ever! (Why are there Senators who are citizens of the USA and... Israel, for example? Looking at you, Chucky Schumer and Adam Shitt!) (There is something about Jewish people getting Israeli citizenship conferred upon them if they visit Israel; but I am not an expert) And almost all of them are.. Democrats. Weird, that.
Ban muslims from government; maybe ban them from the country. Do some research: Our founding fathers were fighting muslims back in the 1700s and 1800s. It was a big concern, even "back then." It's not just since 9/11. Thomas Jefferson and the Tripoli Pirates: The Forgotten War That Changed American History, by Brian Kilmeade Amazing book and AMAZING author!!
Re-word the 2nd Amend. to separate out "militia" and "the right to keep and bear arms" (Too many people think you should only have a gun if you're in a well-regulated militia, and they think that means the actual military.)
Include footnotes and references in the Constitution as superscript text!
Include references to the Federalist Papers.
Footnotes and references further define what things mean, so it will be harder for Courts to come up with their own interpretation.
Certain things cannot be undone with an amendment. For example: the 2A would be hard-wired into the Constitution, not the Bill of Rights, and no matter how many States might want to change it, they cannot!
1st Amendment is hard-wired into the Constitution, cannot be undone by any future Amendment, and is worded to included future media that the Founding Fathers simply couldn't have imagined (TV, Internet, Radio, TheDonald.win)
National animal is the Bald Eagle and the national reptile is Pepe. (Also, the Consitution orders all Bald Eagles to get a new "call". Seriously, have you heard a bald eagle? It's... weak sauce.) :)
Bald eagles have several calls. Most are awesome and one is weak-sauce. This is common for all animals. You've been influenced by anti-American propaganda that started only a few years ago. Take a bath.
All politicians can be bought. The question is if buying the politician returns more value than the cost of buying them.
The idea behind term limits is to increase the cost: having to buy a politician each limit means more expense for those influencing government.
But there's another way to solve the problem: reducing politicians power. That way the return isn't greater than the cost.
The latter solution is a hundred-fold better than the former. Not only does it grant more freedom to the citizenry, think about the other side of the equation: "Politician X is bought of... so what?"
So you are very correct: Eliminate a lot of the government bullshit programs (power) and we won't even care if the Rockefellers have bought off a politician.
Ok. There's another angle: make bribing a politician a capital offense. It used to be. Not a perfect solution, but nothing is. That's why we need multiple solutions.
Our entire system of government is constructed for the purposes of reducing politicians power. Yet, politicians always find no end of ways to take more power. Good luck taking it back from them in a timely and convenient manner.
Term limits are a stop gap mechanism that immediately eliminates the ability for politicians to make a career out of politics. And it makes it too costly to buy political favors when officials are being constantly recycled.
Separation of powers, electoral college, the bicameral legislature, the constitution itself, lower courts, higher courts, executive orders... all of these features were put in place to reduce politicians power.
Yet here we are electing a man who is fighting tooth and nail against a bloated, corrupt, horrendously over bearing establishment to drain the swamp.
We wouldn't be having these problems if there had been term limits all along.
They just buy the entire party instead. Who controls the RNC/DNC? Not you the people, which is why the DNCcan ignore that Bernie wins their elections every year
The problem is foreign interference in our government and culture. Not by Russia or China though. The real interference is from ‘the people who shall not be named’
The career congressmen are just the tip of the surface of the swamp. The real swamp is composed of government employees and contractors that are fairly isolated from the changes in D.C. The alphabet agencies and the Pentagon are the real reasons the swamp exists.
Which is why the feds should be spread around country - if only for continuation of government survivability. One fat dirty bomb and you have govt and intel shutdown for years.
There needs to be a permanent moratorium on anyone representing the people who isn't an elected official or member of the president's cabinet.
Shut down or consolidate the vast majority of alphabet soup agencies and then reduce the remaining ones to congressional committees and make our elected officials handle those matters. Lord knows congress loves their f-king committees anyway.
Well You add Term Limits + Jungle Primary and you get CA.
Term Limits are not that bad, they work. The Problem is often in CA the illegals are allowed to vote and its counted against those who live in the state. Why you ask because the Liberals believe even if you live in the state you get the 'right' to vote, even if you are not a legal citizen of the country. So pretty much breathing air in CA equates to a vote in elections.
The sad part is the 'so called' liberty groups have never sued the state to enforce Prop 8, and Prop 187 as well challenge the EO that allows the state to unionize. They say things to obtain money...but never go through on anything unless its a pet project they know they will win...so it keeps the racket going.
Haha. My girlfriend saw a picture of her the other day on TV and said she was pretty. I was like WTF. That horse faced skank isn't pretty in any sense. Mind you my girlfriend is Filipina so beauty can be very different between she and I. I mean she thinks I'm hot lol. But objectively there is nothing attractive about that cow which is why she got knocked up by a black man who hated whites and didn't bother to stick around.
Was it one of those old portrait photos? Women back then always looked "pretty" in photos because the photos were all re-touched. Even men's portraits had the impossibly smooth skin, flushed cheeks, bright eyes, etc. It was just trickery, like filters today, but back then it was pros doing it so it wasn't as overt as what we see people do to selfies today.
Why start there? I'd abort her commie parents. Hell I'd abort the parents of Lenin, Marx, Mao, Hitler, Mussolini, Ho Chi Minh, Hillary, Bernie, AOC, I could go on and on.
Dont freaking do slavery! It will cause 2 civial wars. The latter will be caused by a bunch of gay men in dresses trying and take over our country because they virtu signal for 200 year old black slaves. Dont ask, the future is weird. Just dont do it. Lol
Dude no kidding. Slavery was bad for black people but also bad for this country both in the past and in the future. Two races of people suffered heavily for that practice although to be fair it was already part of black culture so at the end of the day the US got the worst of it.
Aside from the moral implications of slavery, it wasn't beneficial economically for more than a very few people. It should have never been allowed and when it was abolished they should have been paid and sent back. The long-term effects have been disastrous.
That is so true, all of it. A few people got rich and benefited and today BLM is telling us they built this country. Yeah not even close. Not even capable.
Ottomans had slaves into 1900s. Middle East still have slaves. Africans and Asians as well. If Democrats didnt use slavery to manipulate people now, they woulda used something else. Slavery is not the issue. Every country used to have slaves, you dont see Norwegian Sami rioting or Australian Aboriginies.
Not saying slavery good or anything, but if they had eliminated it from the start, the Democrats would just be using something else to get a rize of people. Also if they had eliminated it from the start, the rich slave owners might've joined Brits instead. Washington also banned Americans from getting their own slaves, so all the slaves brought to the US after1776 was from other people.
But yeah, make a freedom country and not bann slavery is kinda nonsensical
To be honest I'd rather Dems fond something else to rile us up instead of having black people in our country who hate us and seem to hate themselves as well. Some of them are decent but in general out nation would be better had they never been here in the first place. We would still have some black immigrants that are of benefit to us.
Those handful of slave owners who would have sided with the British would not have had any power to significantly change the outcome. I mean it is something interesting to consider but I don't really see how that would be a game changer.
That's the thing. A large number of black people in the US are descendants of immigrants, not slaves, but the children of these black immigrants end up abandoning their own heritage and integrating with the problematic black american culture that exists due to slavery.
Yah I never really got the slavery part. They do a war to make a freedom country, only to keep having slaves? Must've been politics, rich slave owners woulda supported the Brits if not I guess. I read that Washington banned Americans from going to get their own slaves, so all slaves brought in was from Africans selling Africans etc
Thomas Jefferson, who the Democrats love to revile as a devil these days, actually wanted to abolish slavery. If I remember correctly, he tried to write it into the first draft of the constitution but had to take it out to keep the southern states in. He also advocated a gradual abolishing of slavery, starting with outlawing the transport of new slaves from Africa into the states. He was worried about a wholesale, sudden freeing of slaves because of the rebellion in Haiti (they killed every white person, and many mixed). I don't know why he didn't free his own slaves, or even free them in his will as George Washington did, but he wasn't an evil person. Also, the famous "he had children with his slave" thing is not actually a fact, but a possibility. It was either him or his half-brother, who apparently enjoyed spending time in the slave cabins, which Thomas did not do.
He might have had a relationship with Sally Hemings, who was half-sister to his wife. She was actually sent to France to accompany his daughter apparently (just looked this up), which is when they speculate Jefferson began a relationship with her. The rumors were started by a political opponent. Many people claim it's a fact, and it's including black people, so he's a rapist and that's that. Other historians say it isn't proven, and that Thomas's brother or nephew was a more likely candidate, based on accounts of both their characters. So, who knows. I think he should have just freed all his slaves since he wanted it to happen anyway, but I guess it gives everyone a good reason to dunk on a Founding Father.
Remember reading a letter he wrote to his daughter about the snake media and Dc folks spreading false rumors about him and that woman. Always just thought the false rumors was that he abused her or something. Either way, they probably had much more freedom and better life as his 'slaves' than as freemen during that time. Who knows? History is corrupted, no way to know for sure
“Don't ever, for any reason, do anything to anyone for any reason ever, no matter what, no matter where, or who, or who you are with, or where you are going, or where you've been... ever, for any reason whatsoever...“
Place a clause that any attempt at restricting the right to bear arms via legislation shall be equated to high treason and any citizen SHALL be required to kill the official. Anyone found to have executed a politician who put forth a bill to restrict the right to bear arms, is granted immunity both civil and legal for the actions.
Wouldn't matter. The 2A is so simple to read and understand as it is. You could have written "all weapons, all kinds, all the time, no matter what, period" and liberals would still fuck it all out of shape.
Here is one now. Anything can be a weapon. An object is not a weapon until it used as one. You are allowed to use any weapons at your disposal should an object need to become one. But, before that, guns, axes, bats, etc, are outlawed because they are unsafe to have around in the same way that certain renovations are illegal. It just so happens that when a weapon is needed certain objects are unavailable. You can use any kind of household ornament as a weapon though, and at any time no matter what.
They just don't like 2A... It stand in the way of the Tyranny they want to take people's money, and tell them how to live their lives.
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT: WE ARE HAPPY TO ANNOUNCE IT IS NOW VERBOTEN TO EAT MEAT AND DRIVE NON-ELECTRIC! WE WILL SAVE THE PLANET AT ALL COSTS. crowd of mindless minions cheers
The next day: "But officer, your expensive electricity is generated by failed windmill graveyards, forest burning bio fuel plants, due to the failed government policies. If you do the math, my gasoline is actually less bad for the environment"
YOU AND YOUR FAMILY ARE NOW UNDER ARREST FOR DANGEROUS CLIMATE DENYING HATE SPEECH, UNDER U.N. CLIMATE CODE SECTION 23.17. YOU ARE A DANGER TO THE ENVIRONMENT, DEMOCRACY AND EQUALITY. COME WITH US.
That's their Utopia folks. The elite will be exempt from it, always have been. Tyranny benefits the tyrants.
And I think the way they will start to do this is less with cops on the street and almost exclusively with smart devices that spy on us. They know what I say, they record it, they prevent me from accessing goods and services and maybe put me in jail. As soon as these devices are required to make purchases, prove our immunizations, do banking, etc. we are totally fucked.
I don't think they'll ever stop trying to destroy the 2nd amendment. It's kinda hard to be a cringe-inducing dictator in a world where everyone can talk to each other when your populace has a gun or more behind every door.
"I like what you guys did here, but people will misread this a hundred years in the future. Drop the 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State' bit, and change the 'shall not be infringed' to 'is absolute and may not be restricted in any way for any reason'. Yeah I know it says the same thing, but people in the future are kinda dumb, you gotta be explicit"
Agreed, 100%. I'm just pointing out that people do in fact think all Trump supporters get together to be stupid in massive echo chambers of retardation. On social media, rallies, you name it. You know we won the debate when all they can do is "I know you are, but what am I?"
Not so sure. I graduated in 2006 and did not learn all the Marxist shit being peddled today. We also had no politicians as retarded as AOC or Omar. I think we are quite a bit more stupid today and social media and smart phones are probably a huge part of that. We might have had the potential to be as stupid but just not fully realized at the time.
I believe the idea was every man had the duty and responsibility of being a trained soldier. Instead of having a professional military that would be subject to the whims of a leader.
What a lot of progressive completely fail to understand is that we are granted liberty but that comes with responsibility and duty. You are correct in that we have a responsibility to defend our natural rights and our ability to do that is not to be infringed. It's really very simple but well passed the ability of lefties to wrap their heads around because of feelings.
They've been doing that for ages. The fact is it just doesn't work. The structure of the 4 sentences they use makes it clear beyond doubt that my right to bear arms shall not be infringed regardless of me acting as part of a militia. The 2A says that a militia is important and then goes on to say that the people's right to arms shall not be infringed. I realize we are dealing with jackasses but it really can't be stated any more clearly than it was. In fact that 4 sentence structure was quite brilliant but probably well above the level of brain power of your average progressive.
Well the average brain power of a progressive was never meant to be able to vote. Universal suffrage was the ultimate mistake that has done us in, along with the removal of God and moral ethics from education. The most evil people are also the most intelligent and educated. By removing ethics and civics from education, both public and private, we were doomed to generations of evil and ignorance.
Some major problems with your statement here. Civics hasn't been removed from education. Evil people are not more intelligent. By definition, the fact they can't determine what is good makes them less intelligent.
In today's environment, it's hard for me to imagine how anyone that's not inherently evil could stand our educational process. This has to be by design.
I think you have some logic problems in your reading. I never said evil people are more intelligent, I said that the most evil people are also very intelligent. You can't make evil work on a large scale without being very intelligent. Of course there are murderers and psychopaths that are both evil and stupid, like Cannon Hinnant's murderer. But the worst are those like Soros or Gates who are truly geniuses and believe they are doing "good" while enriching themselves because their moral compass is totally out of alignment with the actual common good.
Being able to discern right from wrong is a sign of wisdom, not intelligence.
THIS. They explicitly stated the militia is the whole of the people. Separately, they also advocated for learning how to shoot, especially while young. They didn't have to stress this much, that's how people survived.
It's because people don't learn English in school.
"A well balanced breakfast, necessary for healthy living and state of mind, the right of the people to keep and eat foods, shall not be infringed."
I call it the breakfast argument.
Really, the first part of the 2nd Amendment is so much darker than anyone gives it credit for. What they are saying is "[Because citizens having the arms and training to overthrow a corrupt government is necessary for the citizens to keep their freedoms], the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
And seriously: "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". That's the strongest statement possible and far stronger than any other amendment.
"Congress shall pass no law" (limits it's imposement upon government)
"shall not be infringed" (strongest possible limitation)
"but in a manner to be prescribed by law" (escape clause)
"but on probable cause" (escape clause)
"without due process of law / without just compensation" (escape clause)
6th has no escape clause, but doesn't have a strengthener.
"than according to the rules of common law" (escape clause)
8th has no escape clause, but doesn't have a strengthener.
Think about that: of the first 8 amendments, 4 have escape clauses, 2 are completely neutral, one has a weakened in its level of restriction upon government, and one solitary amendment goes so far as to say "shall not be INFRINGED", which is the strongest strengthener possible. So fucking strong that even strict scrutiny could reasonably be considered a violation of the Amendment because even strict scrutiny is a level of infringement.
It was written the way it was because it was a warning as well as an amendment: "If you want to keep your freedoms, train up and start stacking bodies when they attempt to restrict your rights to arms."
YES! This is exactly what it says. The more you read of the founding
Fathers, the more their own words define themselves. This should be a requirement for every Supreme Court Judge.
That would be even better. I started by thinking "every Constitutional Judge." Then I changed that, because any Judge dealing with matters of any Constitution is a Supreme Court Judge.
There's no reason Judges who don't deal with the Constitution at all shouldn't also be better read on our founding Fathers than I am. And it does take a lot of reading to get familiar with their take on things. Not only are they nuanced, but their positions change throughout their lives, like most people.
This would be a good time to point out that our one vote is MOST important when it goes for a Judge, and possibly for a County Sheriff. Most people who do vote for a Judge know little to nothing about the people on the ballot, yet that Judge will impact the community moreso than perhaps any other Official.
Not to discourage anyone from voting for DJT, but our one vote there is a much smaller % of the total votes. Lots of Judges are elected with few total votes.
"And such rifled muskets that fly through the skies and spew forth their ammunition with great speed and ferocity, as well as the aero-planes upon which yon muskets rest."
it'd be fucking awesome to be a privateer right now with cunt face Iran trying to start shit out in the Persian Gulf, think of all the fucking oil you could seize for loot while also performing a humanitarian service to all of civilization
Except for the sailing part. Have you ever been aboard one of these? Seen the lack of safety equipment they had? Try walking a spar, when you need to. You're travelling 80 feet (or more) left to right and maybe over 100 up and down, just standing still. Fall and it's hundreds of feet down if you land in the trough between large waves. No way can the ship turn around and pick you pack up.
They went through sailors. That's why the Brits imposed naval impressment. Of course if you were the owner or the Captain you didn't have to do that stuff, but you probably came up through the ranks. The pegleg isn't just a fable.
Odd how they seem to think it only means muskets. These are the people who always tell to educate ourselves and "maybe read a book". Shit, all you have to do is listen to the national anthem, "the bombs bursting in air." What the fuck do they think that was?
Our side used rifles more than muskets. Cartridges, Magazines. An inventor had a faster repeating rifle he wanted to sell to our troops, but he was a horrible entrepreneur. If the 20 men he trained and equipped killed 20x as many redcoats as the 20 fighting next to them with standard equipment, he wanted 20x the price for his gun.
Congress never gave him a trial. I don't think he ever made many, either. Congress knew all about it though, and didn't restrict it in the 2A. Commulibs need to get edumacated, like via woodchipper
Plus, they're dumb enough to argue that the 2nd only applies to muskets, but freedom of speech definitely applies to radio, TV, internet, etc. One or the other, people.
I was recently reading a book by Wayne LaPierre (like him or not) called Essential Second Amend. Guide. He quoted a famous liberal (Michael Kinsley) who said that he was baffled by how liberals had overwhelmed the 1A by blowing it as far out of proportion as they possibly could and yet they had not convoluted the 2A in the same way. He wanted to know why would people take something so narrowly defined (1A) and blow it all out of proportion but then take something broadly defined like the (2A) and allow it remain precisely what it says it is.
This is how we know we are dealing with complete shitheads when dealing with liberals. They are not smart intellectuals with good intentions as so many like to say. They are evil scum who want the laws rewritten to serve their dire purposes.
Arms is actually very specific. The other possibility is artillery. The distinction is arms are designed to be carried and operated by one person, and the target is one person rather than materiel. This distinction gets blurred because very quickly ship owners were allowed cannons.
So rpgs and tanks could be argued to be off limits for us. Select fire, not so much.
Imagine worrying about being killed by someone that can afford to own and maintain a tank instead of a border hopper that can afford a 3000 buck Honda, uninsured of course, and some booze or some fentanyl laced fry stick.
If I had a time machine I would tell our congress never to pass the 1965 immigration reform act..I'd show joe McCarthy footage of Antifa rioting so that the US starts excecuting communists. Then I'd take a spin back to 1865 and explain how despite their intent, the 14th amendment will be used to justify giving anyone US citizenship who was shat out on US soil and to clarify. Then I'd go back in time and kill Mohammed
Dude, the footage from Iraq and Afghanistan of what the locals get up to when they think the night vision can't see them... It's pretty illness inducing, and that's just what they do to the goats.
Or, you know, the masses of people weighing down the entire society with “welfare”
“Trump wanna take food stamps away. People need that sheeit because lawd know my baby daddy caught a charge and ain’t doin nuffin for my 7 illegitimate kids.“
If this country falls I seriously doubt humanity will ever invent reliable forms of space travel, let alone live on other planets. There is no value to letting in waves and waves of sub-80 IQ third world garbage other than giving Democrats powers they wouldn't otherwise have.
It legit is frustrating how much time, energy and resources are wasted on people who will never amount to anything. And of course all of the anti-white shit going on and extreme race-baiting Democrats.
The advantages of a long barreled rifle was something early Americans were very well aware of. Inspired from German designs, Americans built the Pennsylvania Long Rifle and Kentucky Long Rifle. Also we were the first to open businesses that sold whole guns: lock stock and barrel. (That’s where the term comes from)
When was the first known usage? Surely businesses using it on signs or in their name are recorded. The first known usage can be credited, with the disclaimer that it may have been used prior.
No far more simple:
"Every law abiding Citizen shall be allowed to bear the very same arms that are stadndard issues of the United States armed Forces, without any restriction and on every public Road or place in the whole of the United States of America. Any state law that alter this constitunenal right are dismissed with prejudice"
So even commiefonia will be not able to restrict this.
If you have a felony record you can't posses weapons anymore even today, so that doesn't change. This is what i meant with this.
Standard issue should be enough because the "Armed Forces" have different issues. So all of them are 2A conform.
The 2A ISN'T there to protect your hobby, it is meant to legally arm you against foes and the government and therefore Standard issue should be sufficient for this.
My point is that standard issue is probably a side arm and rifle. I think it needs to be anything and everything. Saying standard issues can start a whole cascade of what they includes and doesn't include.
You would have to explain that we eventually make statues of him and carve his face into a mountain and that he was well respected and renowned as a legend for the next 240 years, then at one point in the future a fringe group of communists decided they hate him specifically because he was white and owned slaves so they destroy his monuments. His head will surely explode
You would then have attempt to explain what Communism is and his head would surely explode even harder
you really need to be careful how much you red pill them on what things are like at the moment because after they go far enough down the rabbit hole with things like pizzagate they may just decide it isn't even worth bothering if it leads to a future of such incalculable degeneracy
I suspect it would scramble his mind even more if you explain that they can in fact be anything they want to identify as and that we have to change laws to allow it. He'd have fucking nuked this country before it even got off the ground I suspect.
There’s no getting around the fact that rights don’t defend themselves. People just want to come up with some scenario where words on a piece of paper can magically protect them from tyranny.
The second amendment is a line in the sand. That’s it. A line in the sand doesn’t stop people from crossing. it only signifies a point at which action is to be taken. If you’re never going to take action anyways then it doesn’t matter where the line is placed because you won’t do anything regardless.
"But it says keep and bear arms, it's all encompassing...is it not?"
"Oh man, I forgot to tell you...one of you guys put a comma right here, and they're still trying to argue that the comma makes the statment mean the opposite of what it means. Also, they think 'the people' and 'militia' means 'national guard'..."
"The right to keep and bear arms of any kind shall not be infringed" Remember they will start debating what arms really means. But honestly the 2A is so fucking elegant as it is that misinterpretation is either pure dishonesty or retardation or both.
You see the party of science who tells us all to read more books will really struggle with basic English grammar someday. You need to dumb it waaaaay down for them. No I'm serious, most people will not be near as smart as you guys someday. There will be this shit called diversity and affirmative actions, oh fuck it, just dumb it way down. lol
Federal national citizen referendum giving citizens ability to impeach any US government employee from any branch, with the ability to settle draws with trial by combat
Ability for citizens to allocate by percentage where in the USG their taxes will go and NOT go without changing the total amount they are extorted
IQ threshold is dangerous because while right now it's relatively reliable, they would just change the parameters and people who were good at virtue signaling and fluent in ebonics would suddenly have average scores of 170. A part of me does think there should be a barrier to voting though. I think if your family tree extends back to a certain point of being US citizens, you're a veteran or active duty military, no violent crimes on record, etc.
I think the electoral college was a good idea, but I don't think it's future-proof. The more I age and interact with people of all types the less I believe that everybody should have the right to vote. It sounds good in a touchy feely way, but when you consider that half of the population is far dumber than the average person it's kind of terrifying. Throw birthright citizenship into the mix and we have a system that is extremely vulnerable to being taken advantage of. People are already more or less voting along racial lines save for outliers, thankfully immigration has been curbed massively with increased border security and covid being used to end immigration "temporarily" (hopefully permanently for the most part, never at levels it was previously at). At the rate it was going it was only a matter of 10-20 years before the country was more or less battling through their vote as to what race America serves. Not familiar enough with the numbers, but I'm still not letting my guard down, immigration needs to stay extremely low or at zero and conservatives need to be fucking like rabbits and teaching their kids proper values and how to shoot.
I love the last idea and have been trying to promote it. Like you'd get a ballot each year to send back with your tax return. Solves a lot of problems with socialism. Universal healthcare? Great idea as long as I can put 0% on that.
They don't want universal healthcare, they want single payer healthcare. They want to make it illegal for you to pay for your own healthcare, you get what they decide.
That likely means that most black, Latino, SE Asians, and Islanders will not be able to vote. Africans will have no chance. I'm not complaining, just saying what the facts will drive out. Peg it around 95 and you will eliminate about half the whites as well. Sounds good to me. I'd go farther than just IQ and ID. I also want people who have lived and supported themselves without assistance for 5 years. If you have been using welfare to keep yourself afloat your whole life you get no say. There goes a lot of the Latino vote right there.
Federal national citizen referendum giving citizens ability to impeach any US government employee from any branch, with the ability to settle draws with trial by combat
Fuck yeah buddy. Although the reality in our society would be politicians constantly in court instead of doing their jobs.
"Also put that congress can never raise their own wages, public vote only, and that they get a percentage of their salary just like the military does when they leave."
Insider trading more heavily prosecuted than the rest of us. Cap on annual earnings. You want to get rich you get the fuck out of office. Grandfather in those who are already rich and interest exceeds the cap. Must not be a refugee from a hostile nation. Must have held a job and not lived off mommy and daddy or the state for 10 years. That would eliminate The Squad.
How about we include any bribery or corruption on the part of politicians is instantaneously a death sentence to both/all parties involved, and confiscation of the entirety of both/all individuals properties. This law shall not be amended nor abolished in perpetuity.
If you think about it, they did actually make it foolproof. “Shall not be infringed” pretty much says it all. But the communists don’t care and rationalize an explanation to stop whatever they want either way. Their explanations are nonsense and they infringe anyways.
So regardless what words would be used, the commies would just say whatever crap they can to justify violating them.
Nobody back then believed we'd be letting bitches run things. And I didn't specifically say "women" I said "bitches". You don't specifically forbid that which you think could never happen in a million years.
My only problem with the death penalty is with the statistics for wrongful prosecution. Once you get into the 1970's the numbers just explode. Being put to death for doing nothing is about as bad as I can imagine. And nobody cares it seems. Just look at who is running for POTUS right now.
Digging entire civiliizations underground without knowledge, consent of the government who are paying for it all, should never be allowed (taxation without underground representation)
If you don't know what I'm talking about, google continuity of government underground bases
Remove the opening, or at least the "general welfare / good and plenty" clause, or have a disclaimer that says "THE ACTUAL CONSTITUTION STARTS BELOW THIS LINE".
Define more rules for elections and how electors can be chosen so states can't just go "yeah we're gonna let dogs vote in this one".
"Look, sir, the Bill of Rights is now forty hundred and score pages. We can't submit this! You've got provisions for lasers, phasers, mortars, cannons, new clear devices, bumpable stocks, 1000 round drums, and what the hell even is a lightsaber? Some sort of blade made of sunlight?"
"Some of that is speculative. Hey, I don't mind if you shorten it and make it more punchy, but trust me, you leave any loopholes the extreme left will pounce. I've got to go, I'm out of time. Literally, the machine is running on fumes. I trust you'll figure it out. Remember, succinct, but sufficiently broad in scope. You want this to cover weapons technology for at LEAST the next two millennia."
waaarrrrggglewhuuuuump
"Okay, let's see what they ultimately decided to keep... aw, shit. 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.' Well... at least it's capitalized this time."
That sounds more like a commandment. If I don't want to own a fighter jet I shouldn't have to. I think there should simply be no limits on what I can own and in fact the 2A already provides for that.
And term limits!
It doesn't really help much. See California state term limits:
https://clerk.assembly.ca.gov/content/elected-officials
As you can see, it actually makes the situation even worse in CA, as a new and more progressive batch of people is replacing the term-limited ones every election...
Separation of Economy and State
Wow...incredibly salient point!
Back to the OP topic: I guess I'm not the only one who literally day dreams and pretends I go back in time and tell the Founding Fathers what happens!
My humble suggestions:
no lobbyists or lawyer outsourcing of law writing
Also something about states selecting senators, not the popular vote.
In the 18th Century they burned them at the stake.
..and make it a Federal crime for anyone to enter the US without passing through a port of entry.
Bald eagles have several calls. Most are awesome and one is weak-sauce. This is common for all animals. You've been influenced by anti-American propaganda that started only a few years ago. Take a bath.
Mises and Rothbard has it right!
isnt that the federal reserve?
Government granted monopoly, so no.
All politicians can be bought. The question is if buying the politician returns more value than the cost of buying them.
The idea behind term limits is to increase the cost: having to buy a politician each limit means more expense for those influencing government.
But there's another way to solve the problem: reducing politicians power. That way the return isn't greater than the cost.
The latter solution is a hundred-fold better than the former. Not only does it grant more freedom to the citizenry, think about the other side of the equation: "Politician X is bought of... so what?"
So you are very correct: Eliminate a lot of the government bullshit programs (power) and we won't even care if the Rockefellers have bought off a politician.
Ok. There's another angle: make bribing a politician a capital offense. It used to be. Not a perfect solution, but nothing is. That's why we need multiple solutions.
"reducing politicians power."
Our entire system of government is constructed for the purposes of reducing politicians power. Yet, politicians always find no end of ways to take more power. Good luck taking it back from them in a timely and convenient manner.
Term limits are a stop gap mechanism that immediately eliminates the ability for politicians to make a career out of politics. And it makes it too costly to buy political favors when officials are being constantly recycled.
Separation of powers, electoral college, the bicameral legislature, the constitution itself, lower courts, higher courts, executive orders... all of these features were put in place to reduce politicians power.
Yet here we are electing a man who is fighting tooth and nail against a bloated, corrupt, horrendously over bearing establishment to drain the swamp.
We wouldn't be having these problems if there had been term limits all along.
The simple way to fix that is monitorium on said congressional staff.
If you're chosen to work under a congressmen, you can only work x amount of years and its unpaid.
A congressman/senator should only be allowed one and i mean ONE junior aid.
They just buy the entire party instead. Who controls the RNC/DNC? Not you the people, which is why the DNCcan ignore that Bernie wins their elections every year
The problem is foreign interference in our government and culture. Not by Russia or China though. The real interference is from ‘the people who shall not be named’
I think it would have prevented or at least reduced swamp formation if enacted at the beginning
The career congressmen are just the tip of the surface of the swamp. The real swamp is composed of government employees and contractors that are fairly isolated from the changes in D.C. The alphabet agencies and the Pentagon are the real reasons the swamp exists.
Draining the swamp doesn't mean increase the turnover rate of the water. It means take away the power of government so the water never returns.
Then over time the slime accumulates and we're up to our eyeballs in muck again.
Terms limits aren't a pump. They're a dam.
"The chickens come home to roost." These people you refer to actually state that POTUS' efforts interfere with their agenda.
Which is why the feds should be spread around country - if only for continuation of government survivability. One fat dirty bomb and you have govt and intel shutdown for years.
There needs to be a permanent moratorium on anyone representing the people who isn't an elected official or member of the president's cabinet.
Shut down or consolidate the vast majority of alphabet soup agencies and then reduce the remaining ones to congressional committees and make our elected officials handle those matters. Lord knows congress loves their f-king committees anyway.
Well You add Term Limits + Jungle Primary and you get CA.
Term Limits are not that bad, they work. The Problem is often in CA the illegals are allowed to vote and its counted against those who live in the state. Why you ask because the Liberals believe even if you live in the state you get the 'right' to vote, even if you are not a legal citizen of the country. So pretty much breathing air in CA equates to a vote in elections.
The sad part is the 'so called' liberty groups have never sued the state to enforce Prop 8, and Prop 187 as well challenge the EO that allows the state to unionize. They say things to obtain money...but never go through on anything unless its a pet project they know they will win...so it keeps the racket going.
Nothing wrong with that if that is what the people really want.
plus refining the commerce clause
It’s contributed more to big govt than any corrupt politician - even more so than King FDR
I have no idea about any of this. Was this done at SCOTUS, or where? As I see it, that was a power grab from the beginning.
Haha. My girlfriend saw a picture of her the other day on TV and said she was pretty. I was like WTF. That horse faced skank isn't pretty in any sense. Mind you my girlfriend is Filipina so beauty can be very different between she and I. I mean she thinks I'm hot lol. But objectively there is nothing attractive about that cow which is why she got knocked up by a black man who hated whites and didn't bother to stick around.
Was it one of those old portrait photos? Women back then always looked "pretty" in photos because the photos were all re-touched. Even men's portraits had the impossibly smooth skin, flushed cheeks, bright eyes, etc. It was just trickery, like filters today, but back then it was pros doing it so it wasn't as overt as what we see people do to selfies today.
Why start there? I'd abort her commie parents. Hell I'd abort the parents of Lenin, Marx, Mao, Hitler, Mussolini, Ho Chi Minh, Hillary, Bernie, AOC, I could go on and on.
And Soros’ parents!!!
Go back to caveman time and kill their ancestors just to be sure. And tripple kill Muhammed for obvious reasons.
"Think of it like the monarchy. Except instead of believing in the right-to-rule by God, it's the belief to impose misery on all by force."
"Ackshually, everyone voluntarily participates in nirvana after you give me all your things"
"Once we purge the undesirables of course."
"Everyone loves it ones you kill all who disagrees with it. JK even then the people try to shoot themselves out of it"
That's stage II.
Dont freaking do slavery! It will cause 2 civial wars. The latter will be caused by a bunch of gay men in dresses trying and take over our country because they virtu signal for 200 year old black slaves. Dont ask, the future is weird. Just dont do it. Lol
Dude no kidding. Slavery was bad for black people but also bad for this country both in the past and in the future. Two races of people suffered heavily for that practice although to be fair it was already part of black culture so at the end of the day the US got the worst of it.
Aside from the moral implications of slavery, it wasn't beneficial economically for more than a very few people. It should have never been allowed and when it was abolished they should have been paid and sent back. The long-term effects have been disastrous.
That is so true, all of it. A few people got rich and benefited and today BLM is telling us they built this country. Yeah not even close. Not even capable.
Ottomans had slaves into 1900s. Middle East still have slaves. Africans and Asians as well. If Democrats didnt use slavery to manipulate people now, they woulda used something else. Slavery is not the issue. Every country used to have slaves, you dont see Norwegian Sami rioting or Australian Aboriginies.
Not saying slavery good or anything, but if they had eliminated it from the start, the Democrats would just be using something else to get a rize of people. Also if they had eliminated it from the start, the rich slave owners might've joined Brits instead. Washington also banned Americans from getting their own slaves, so all the slaves brought to the US after1776 was from other people.
But yeah, make a freedom country and not bann slavery is kinda nonsensical
To be honest I'd rather Dems fond something else to rile us up instead of having black people in our country who hate us and seem to hate themselves as well. Some of them are decent but in general out nation would be better had they never been here in the first place. We would still have some black immigrants that are of benefit to us.
Those handful of slave owners who would have sided with the British would not have had any power to significantly change the outcome. I mean it is something interesting to consider but I don't really see how that would be a game changer.
That's the thing. A large number of black people in the US are descendants of immigrants, not slaves, but the children of these black immigrants end up abandoning their own heritage and integrating with the problematic black american culture that exists due to slavery.
Yah I never really got the slavery part. They do a war to make a freedom country, only to keep having slaves? Must've been politics, rich slave owners woulda supported the Brits if not I guess. I read that Washington banned Americans from going to get their own slaves, so all slaves brought in was from Africans selling Africans etc
Thomas Jefferson, who the Democrats love to revile as a devil these days, actually wanted to abolish slavery. If I remember correctly, he tried to write it into the first draft of the constitution but had to take it out to keep the southern states in. He also advocated a gradual abolishing of slavery, starting with outlawing the transport of new slaves from Africa into the states. He was worried about a wholesale, sudden freeing of slaves because of the rebellion in Haiti (they killed every white person, and many mixed). I don't know why he didn't free his own slaves, or even free them in his will as George Washington did, but he wasn't an evil person. Also, the famous "he had children with his slave" thing is not actually a fact, but a possibility. It was either him or his half-brother, who apparently enjoyed spending time in the slave cabins, which Thomas did not do.
Didnt Thomas have a romantic relationship with one of his slaves? Even sent her to France to get educated or smth?
Yes he did, and thus, ironically, a large percent of American blacks can probably trace their ancestry to Jefferson
He might have had a relationship with Sally Hemings, who was half-sister to his wife. She was actually sent to France to accompany his daughter apparently (just looked this up), which is when they speculate Jefferson began a relationship with her. The rumors were started by a political opponent. Many people claim it's a fact, and it's including black people, so he's a rapist and that's that. Other historians say it isn't proven, and that Thomas's brother or nephew was a more likely candidate, based on accounts of both their characters. So, who knows. I think he should have just freed all his slaves since he wanted it to happen anyway, but I guess it gives everyone a good reason to dunk on a Founding Father.
Remember reading a letter he wrote to his daughter about the snake media and Dc folks spreading false rumors about him and that woman. Always just thought the false rumors was that he abused her or something. Either way, they probably had much more freedom and better life as his 'slaves' than as freemen during that time. Who knows? History is corrupted, no way to know for sure
That would be hilarious if it wasn't so true
Pelosi calls that investing.
And federal voter ID.
BOLD, ITALICIZED, UNDERLINED
And in Red Ink
'Red ink means they planned to remove it' -2020 liberals
Also add 'for whatever reason' after.
“Don't ever, for any reason, do anything to anyone for any reason ever, no matter what, no matter where, or who, or who you are with, or where you are going, or where you've been... ever, for any reason whatsoever...“
Followed by "and by shall not be infringed, we mean shall not be infringed."
"Red ink did not exist, it must be doctered" - Jack Dorsey.
Place a clause that any attempt at restricting the right to bear arms via legislation shall be equated to high treason and any citizen SHALL be required to kill the official. Anyone found to have executed a politician who put forth a bill to restrict the right to bear arms, is granted immunity both civil and legal for the actions.
Now that's more like it, the ancient Athens route. Open season for anyone daring to change the foundation of the society.
I'd emigrate to another society if I wanted anything less..
You......I like you
Wouldn't matter. The 2A is so simple to read and understand as it is. You could have written "all weapons, all kinds, all the time, no matter what, period" and liberals would still fuck it all out of shape.
Here is one now. Anything can be a weapon. An object is not a weapon until it used as one. You are allowed to use any weapons at your disposal should an object need to become one. But, before that, guns, axes, bats, etc, are outlawed because they are unsafe to have around in the same way that certain renovations are illegal. It just so happens that when a weapon is needed certain objects are unavailable. You can use any kind of household ornament as a weapon though, and at any time no matter what.
The way I read 2A, Southwest has the right to buy AMRAAMs for their airliners.
They just don't like 2A... It stand in the way of the Tyranny they want to take people's money, and tell them how to live their lives.
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT: WE ARE HAPPY TO ANNOUNCE IT IS NOW VERBOTEN TO EAT MEAT AND DRIVE NON-ELECTRIC! WE WILL SAVE THE PLANET AT ALL COSTS. crowd of mindless minions cheers
The next day: "But officer, your expensive electricity is generated by failed windmill graveyards, forest burning bio fuel plants, due to the failed government policies. If you do the math, my gasoline is actually less bad for the environment"
YOU AND YOUR FAMILY ARE NOW UNDER ARREST FOR DANGEROUS CLIMATE DENYING HATE SPEECH, UNDER U.N. CLIMATE CODE SECTION 23.17. YOU ARE A DANGER TO THE ENVIRONMENT, DEMOCRACY AND EQUALITY. COME WITH US.
That's their Utopia folks. The elite will be exempt from it, always have been. Tyranny benefits the tyrants.
And I think the way they will start to do this is less with cops on the street and almost exclusively with smart devices that spy on us. They know what I say, they record it, they prevent me from accessing goods and services and maybe put me in jail. As soon as these devices are required to make purchases, prove our immunizations, do banking, etc. we are totally fucked.
Like boiling lobsters, turning the heat on slowly, so there is little resistance.
I don't think they'll ever stop trying to destroy the 2nd amendment. It's kinda hard to be a cringe-inducing dictator in a world where everyone can talk to each other when your populace has a gun or more behind every door.
Remove the part of the militia. I know it is used for context. But low IQ people tricked by steppers think that the 2a is about the militia.
"I like what you guys did here, but people will misread this a hundred years in the future. Drop the 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State' bit, and change the 'shall not be infringed' to 'is absolute and may not be restricted in any way for any reason'. Yeah I know it says the same thing, but people in the future are kinda dumb, you gotta be explicit"
20 years ago we couldn't have imagined how dumb society would be. Reality TV then Social Media did us in.
BRAWNDO
You like money too? We should hang out.
And sex with women? We should totally hang out
Water? You mean like from the toilet?
LOLOL.
People were just as stupid in the early 2000s as today.
but now they can get together and be stupid in massive echo chambers of retardation, aka social media.
People say that about us, here
People here buck heads without mods silencing us left and right. This feels more like an old bbs forum than a Twitter chamber.
Edit: we wouldn't even be here if they allowed "wrong think" in their pleasurezones.
Agreed, 100%. I'm just pointing out that people do in fact think all Trump supporters get together to be stupid in massive echo chambers of retardation. On social media, rallies, you name it. You know we won the debate when all they can do is "I know you are, but what am I?"
They forfeited any seat at the grown-up table.
and those people can suck a big one
EXACTLY!
Not so sure. I graduated in 2006 and did not learn all the Marxist shit being peddled today. We also had no politicians as retarded as AOC or Omar. I think we are quite a bit more stupid today and social media and smart phones are probably a huge part of that. We might have had the potential to be as stupid but just not fully realized at the time.
Progress! Realize your full potential! Lol
Right, who do we think created that stuff lmao
We’re at a point in time where Cardi B (A stripper rapper) just made a song called WAP, and a week later is interviewing Biden.
Academia is a larger culprit
I believe the idea was every man had the duty and responsibility of being a trained soldier. Instead of having a professional military that would be subject to the whims of a leader.
What a lot of progressive completely fail to understand is that we are granted liberty but that comes with responsibility and duty. You are correct in that we have a responsibility to defend our natural rights and our ability to do that is not to be infringed. It's really very simple but well passed the ability of lefties to wrap their heads around because of feelings.
That's fine, but it should be called out separately, because enemies of the new republic will try to tie militia membership to the right to arms.
They've been doing that for ages. The fact is it just doesn't work. The structure of the 4 sentences they use makes it clear beyond doubt that my right to bear arms shall not be infringed regardless of me acting as part of a militia. The 2A says that a militia is important and then goes on to say that the people's right to arms shall not be infringed. I realize we are dealing with jackasses but it really can't be stated any more clearly than it was. In fact that 4 sentence structure was quite brilliant but probably well above the level of brain power of your average progressive.
Well the average brain power of a progressive was never meant to be able to vote. Universal suffrage was the ultimate mistake that has done us in, along with the removal of God and moral ethics from education. The most evil people are also the most intelligent and educated. By removing ethics and civics from education, both public and private, we were doomed to generations of evil and ignorance.
Some major problems with your statement here. Civics hasn't been removed from education. Evil people are not more intelligent. By definition, the fact they can't determine what is good makes them less intelligent.
In today's environment, it's hard for me to imagine how anyone that's not inherently evil could stand our educational process. This has to be by design.
I think you have some logic problems in your reading. I never said evil people are more intelligent, I said that the most evil people are also very intelligent. You can't make evil work on a large scale without being very intelligent. Of course there are murderers and psychopaths that are both evil and stupid, like Cannon Hinnant's murderer. But the worst are those like Soros or Gates who are truly geniuses and believe they are doing "good" while enriching themselves because their moral compass is totally out of alignment with the actual common good.
Being able to discern right from wrong is a sign of wisdom, not intelligence.
How would you differentiate wisdom from intelligence?
Everybody is in the militia. :)
At a minimum, all male citizens capable of bearing arms.
THIS. They explicitly stated the militia is the whole of the people. Separately, they also advocated for learning how to shoot, especially while young. They didn't have to stress this much, that's how people survived.
It's because people don't learn English in school.
"A well balanced breakfast, necessary for healthy living and state of mind, the right of the people to keep and eat foods, shall not be infringed."
I call it the breakfast argument.
Really, the first part of the 2nd Amendment is so much darker than anyone gives it credit for. What they are saying is "[Because citizens having the arms and training to overthrow a corrupt government is necessary for the citizens to keep their freedoms], the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
And seriously: "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". That's the strongest statement possible and far stronger than any other amendment.
"Congress shall pass no law" (limits it's imposement upon government)
"shall not be infringed" (strongest possible limitation)
"but in a manner to be prescribed by law" (escape clause)
"but on probable cause" (escape clause)
"without due process of law / without just compensation" (escape clause)
6th has no escape clause, but doesn't have a strengthener.
"than according to the rules of common law" (escape clause)
8th has no escape clause, but doesn't have a strengthener.
Think about that: of the first 8 amendments, 4 have escape clauses, 2 are completely neutral, one has a weakened in its level of restriction upon government, and one solitary amendment goes so far as to say "shall not be INFRINGED", which is the strongest strengthener possible. So fucking strong that even strict scrutiny could reasonably be considered a violation of the Amendment because even strict scrutiny is a level of infringement.
It was written the way it was because it was a warning as well as an amendment: "If you want to keep your freedoms, train up and start stacking bodies when they attempt to restrict your rights to arms."
YES! This is exactly what it says. The more you read of the founding Fathers, the more their own words define themselves. This should be a requirement for every Supreme Court Judge.
Every Surepeme Court Judge? Why is not the requirement for EVERY JUDGE in this country?
That would be even better. I started by thinking "every Constitutional Judge." Then I changed that, because any Judge dealing with matters of any Constitution is a Supreme Court Judge.
There's no reason Judges who don't deal with the Constitution at all shouldn't also be better read on our founding Fathers than I am. And it does take a lot of reading to get familiar with their take on things. Not only are they nuanced, but their positions change throughout their lives, like most people.
This would be a good time to point out that our one vote is MOST important when it goes for a Judge, and possibly for a County Sheriff. Most people who do vote for a Judge know little to nothing about the people on the ballot, yet that Judge will impact the community moreso than perhaps any other Official.
Not to discourage anyone from voting for DJT, but our one vote there is a much smaller % of the total votes. Lots of Judges are elected with few total votes.
I like that one. It helps people realize the "the people" and "militia" are one in the same.
Beautiful!
They'd likely look at you like you were crazy and ask "what does 'shall not be infringed' mean in this future clown world of yours?"
What you mean like a buckskin coat or something? <cackle cackle>
"Even Nukes, don't worry what that means."
"And such rifled muskets that fly through the skies and spew forth their ammunition with great speed and ferocity, as well as the aero-planes upon which yon muskets rest."
And such metal leviathans as travel the dark depths and reap explosive havoc from below the crest of the bounding mane.
Also everyone can own a machine that goes BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT at 3900 rounds per minute.
BRRRRRRRRRRT intensifies
"arms" is pretty vague and should cover just about anything, honestly. We are being fucked
I want a fucking warship, imagine being a privateer during wartime it would be so cool.
just blast this all day on the 7 seas
it'd be fucking awesome to be a privateer right now with cunt face Iran trying to start shit out in the Persian Gulf, think of all the fucking oil you could seize for loot while also performing a humanitarian service to all of civilization
Tbf their navy is such a joke that you could probably break out old ironsides and raid their coastal ports before they even did anything
That's nice, but I prefer this.
Except for the sailing part. Have you ever been aboard one of these? Seen the lack of safety equipment they had? Try walking a spar, when you need to. You're travelling 80 feet (or more) left to right and maybe over 100 up and down, just standing still. Fall and it's hundreds of feet down if you land in the trough between large waves. No way can the ship turn around and pick you pack up.
They went through sailors. That's why the Brits imposed naval impressment. Of course if you were the owner or the Captain you didn't have to do that stuff, but you probably came up through the ranks. The pegleg isn't just a fable.
Yeah except for the war part.
Agreed
Odd how they seem to think it only means muskets. These are the people who always tell to educate ourselves and "maybe read a book". Shit, all you have to do is listen to the national anthem, "the bombs bursting in air." What the fuck do they think that was?
Our side used rifles more than muskets. Cartridges, Magazines. An inventor had a faster repeating rifle he wanted to sell to our troops, but he was a horrible entrepreneur. If the 20 men he trained and equipped killed 20x as many redcoats as the 20 fighting next to them with standard equipment, he wanted 20x the price for his gun.
Congress never gave him a trial. I don't think he ever made many, either. Congress knew all about it though, and didn't restrict it in the 2A. Commulibs need to get edumacated, like via woodchipper
Plus, they're dumb enough to argue that the 2nd only applies to muskets, but freedom of speech definitely applies to radio, TV, internet, etc. One or the other, people.
I was recently reading a book by Wayne LaPierre (like him or not) called Essential Second Amend. Guide. He quoted a famous liberal (Michael Kinsley) who said that he was baffled by how liberals had overwhelmed the 1A by blowing it as far out of proportion as they possibly could and yet they had not convoluted the 2A in the same way. He wanted to know why would people take something so narrowly defined (1A) and blow it all out of proportion but then take something broadly defined like the (2A) and allow it remain precisely what it says it is.
This is how we know we are dealing with complete shitheads when dealing with liberals. They are not smart intellectuals with good intentions as so many like to say. They are evil scum who want the laws rewritten to serve their dire purposes.
Pretty soon they'll outlaw the right to have limbs and start giving bears weapons, as in "the right to arm bears".
Arms is actually very specific. The other possibility is artillery. The distinction is arms are designed to be carried and operated by one person, and the target is one person rather than materiel. This distinction gets blurred because very quickly ship owners were allowed cannons.
So rpgs and tanks could be argued to be off limits for us. Select fire, not so much.
Where do you see that usage / abbreviation in the colonial era?
Unlimited caliber and explosive yield
Owning a tank or artillery is completely legal by the constitution.
Yes
Imagine worrying about being killed by someone that can afford to own and maintain a tank instead of a border hopper that can afford a 3000 buck Honda, uninsured of course, and some booze or some fentanyl laced fry stick.
Civilization seeking missile
Are you dense? The constitution is clear:
I guess you just want PEOPLE TO DIE! /s
I bet dollars to donuts a lot of folks on this website don't think felons should be allowed to own guns.
If I had a time machine I would tell our congress never to pass the 1965 immigration reform act..I'd show joe McCarthy footage of Antifa rioting so that the US starts excecuting communists. Then I'd take a spin back to 1865 and explain how despite their intent, the 14th amendment will be used to justify giving anyone US citizenship who was shat out on US soil and to clarify. Then I'd go back in time and kill Mohammed
This is the way
If you took pictures of Mohammed fucking goats and kids, muslims would just be fucking more goats and kids today.
Dude, the footage from Iraq and Afghanistan of what the locals get up to when they think the night vision can't see them... It's pretty illness inducing, and that's just what they do to the goats.
That’s only scratching the surface of where things went wrong
Well done, Soldier! 🇺🇸
They had to use African slaves because the Irish ones kept spontaneously combusting in the south.
"Please do indentured servitude instead and with the Irish or whatever. Just not from the Atlantic slave trade."
Alternate timeline CNN: America is the only nation to not use slaves from Africa. Here's why that's racist.
Top KEK
Or, you know, the masses of people weighing down the entire society with “welfare”
“Trump wanna take food stamps away. People need that sheeit because lawd know my baby daddy caught a charge and ain’t doin nuffin for my 7 illegitimate kids.“
If this country falls I seriously doubt humanity will ever invent reliable forms of space travel, let alone live on other planets. There is no value to letting in waves and waves of sub-80 IQ third world garbage other than giving Democrats powers they wouldn't otherwise have.
It legit is frustrating how much time, energy and resources are wasted on people who will never amount to anything. And of course all of the anti-white shit going on and extreme race-baiting Democrats.
The advantages of a long barreled rifle was something early Americans were very well aware of. Inspired from German designs, Americans built the Pennsylvania Long Rifle and Kentucky Long Rifle. Also we were the first to open businesses that sold whole guns: lock stock and barrel. (That’s where the term comes from)
Since it is unknown. The the above could be correct.
When was the first known usage? Surely businesses using it on signs or in their name are recorded. The first known usage can be credited, with the disclaimer that it may have been used prior.
BS they "aren't hard to find." You're not going to dig up facts sitting on your ass and looking things up online.
You're contradicting yourself. You started out by saying the origin is unknown. Now you're saying the sources are easy to find.
Your problem is confusing the net with IRL.
Correct answer.
They would just say, "Uhhh still looks pretty clear. Sounds like you have a commie problem"
No far more simple: "Every law abiding Citizen shall be allowed to bear the very same arms that are stadndard issues of the United States armed Forces, without any restriction and on every public Road or place in the whole of the United States of America. Any state law that alter this constitunenal right are dismissed with prejudice"
So even commiefonia will be not able to restrict this.
That's actually way more complicated and open to interpretation. What makes you think I am law abiding for one thing? Standard issue is very limited.
If you have a felony record you can't posses weapons anymore even today, so that doesn't change. This is what i meant with this.
Standard issue should be enough because the "Armed Forces" have different issues. So all of them are 2A conform. The 2A ISN'T there to protect your hobby, it is meant to legally arm you against foes and the government and therefore Standard issue should be sufficient for this.
My point is that standard issue is probably a side arm and rifle. I think it needs to be anything and everything. Saying standard issues can start a whole cascade of what they includes and doesn't include.
Thank you mods for the sticky! Was not expecting it nor felt I deserved it.
You would have to explain that we eventually make statues of him and carve his face into a mountain and that he was well respected and renowned as a legend for the next 240 years, then at one point in the future a fringe group of communists decided they hate him specifically because he was white and owned slaves so they destroy his monuments. His head will surely explode
You would then have attempt to explain what Communism is and his head would surely explode even harder
you really need to be careful how much you red pill them on what things are like at the moment because after they go far enough down the rabbit hole with things like pizzagate they may just decide it isn't even worth bothering if it leads to a future of such incalculable degeneracy
Exactly. Even if they wrote down everything in this thread the left would come up with something else
I suspect it would scramble his mind even more if you explain that they can in fact be anything they want to identify as and that we have to change laws to allow it. He'd have fucking nuked this country before it even got off the ground I suspect.
Good one, shoudl be at the top of the list
Also, ban FIAT
Also ban any business with China except maybe exportation of agricultural products and raw materials.
Put some anti-corporation stuff in there too. Would really help kill this hydra in it's tracks.
The Founders were pro capitalism, but definitely would be against the corporatocracy we have today. Especially the anti-Federalists.
Rocket propelled grenades too.
"We've already put 'shall not be infringed', how much clearer do we need to make it?"
Apparently a lot more clear. Our enemies are expert at obfuscation. Most of them are merely retarded.
There’s no getting around the fact that rights don’t defend themselves. People just want to come up with some scenario where words on a piece of paper can magically protect them from tyranny.
The second amendment is a line in the sand. That’s it. A line in the sand doesn’t stop people from crossing. it only signifies a point at which action is to be taken. If you’re never going to take action anyways then it doesn’t matter where the line is placed because you won’t do anything regardless.
"But it says keep and bear arms, it's all encompassing...is it not?"
"Oh man, I forgot to tell you...one of you guys put a comma right here, and they're still trying to argue that the comma makes the statment mean the opposite of what it means. Also, they think 'the people' and 'militia' means 'national guard'..."
"The what...?"
"EXACTLY, JUST DO AS I ASK!"
Simplify it: "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
"The right to keep and bear arms of any kind shall not be infringed" Remember they will start debating what arms really means. But honestly the 2A is so fucking elegant as it is that misinterpretation is either pure dishonesty or retardation or both.
If you guys could draw a tiny frog in the corner, it would flip everyone's fucking mind.
KEK <--- This one
KEK
KEK
Use a period, not a comma. Trust me, it will make Leftist heads explode 200 years from now!
You see the party of science who tells us all to read more books will really struggle with basic English grammar someday. You need to dumb it waaaaay down for them. No I'm serious, most people will not be near as smart as you guys someday. There will be this shit called diversity and affirmative actions, oh fuck it, just dumb it way down. lol
That's why I'm thinking they meant that all these things need to be included in the shall not be infringed part.
IQ threshold for voting
Voter ID
Federal national citizen referendum giving citizens ability to impeach any US government employee from any branch, with the ability to settle draws with trial by combat
Ability for citizens to allocate by percentage where in the USG their taxes will go and NOT go without changing the total amount they are extorted
IQ threshold is dangerous because while right now it's relatively reliable, they would just change the parameters and people who were good at virtue signaling and fluent in ebonics would suddenly have average scores of 170. A part of me does think there should be a barrier to voting though. I think if your family tree extends back to a certain point of being US citizens, you're a veteran or active duty military, no violent crimes on record, etc.
I think the electoral college was a good idea, but I don't think it's future-proof. The more I age and interact with people of all types the less I believe that everybody should have the right to vote. It sounds good in a touchy feely way, but when you consider that half of the population is far dumber than the average person it's kind of terrifying. Throw birthright citizenship into the mix and we have a system that is extremely vulnerable to being taken advantage of. People are already more or less voting along racial lines save for outliers, thankfully immigration has been curbed massively with increased border security and covid being used to end immigration "temporarily" (hopefully permanently for the most part, never at levels it was previously at). At the rate it was going it was only a matter of 10-20 years before the country was more or less battling through their vote as to what race America serves. Not familiar enough with the numbers, but I'm still not letting my guard down, immigration needs to stay extremely low or at zero and conservatives need to be fucking like rabbits and teaching their kids proper values and how to shoot.
"What's IQ"?
I love the last idea and have been trying to promote it. Like you'd get a ballot each year to send back with your tax return. Solves a lot of problems with socialism. Universal healthcare? Great idea as long as I can put 0% on that.
They don't want universal healthcare, they want single payer healthcare. They want to make it illegal for you to pay for your own healthcare, you get what they decide.
That likely means that most black, Latino, SE Asians, and Islanders will not be able to vote. Africans will have no chance. I'm not complaining, just saying what the facts will drive out. Peg it around 95 and you will eliminate about half the whites as well. Sounds good to me. I'd go farther than just IQ and ID. I also want people who have lived and supported themselves without assistance for 5 years. If you have been using welfare to keep yourself afloat your whole life you get no say. There goes a lot of the Latino vote right there.
Fuck yeah buddy. Although the reality in our society would be politicians constantly in court instead of doing their jobs.
M1 Tanks and Anti Aircraft
"Also put that congress can never raise their own wages, public vote only, and that they get a percentage of their salary just like the military does when they leave."
Insider trading more heavily prosecuted than the rest of us. Cap on annual earnings. You want to get rich you get the fuck out of office. Grandfather in those who are already rich and interest exceeds the cap. Must not be a refugee from a hostile nation. Must have held a job and not lived off mommy and daddy or the state for 10 years. That would eliminate The Squad.
I'd go back to 1945...
"General Patton, don't listen to anything they say, drive on into Russia and waste those Commie motherfuckers"
Also tell MacArthur to nuke China.
I'd have to go to Tsarist Russia and somehow get the White Army to win.
And stop in China on your way back. Just trust me on that one.
Any weapon owned by the government may be owned by a private citizen.
Except shrink rays. No fucking shrink rays.
"One day I farted in an elevator and blamed it on some alien kid. Next thing I know he shrunk me down and put in this damned wall."
"also, go ahead and send all slaves back to Africa right now, trust me you'll regret it"
Seriously. The BLM terrorists out number the upstanding African American citizens 10 to 1. Rather not have any of them here.
How about we include any bribery or corruption on the part of politicians is instantaneously a death sentence to both/all parties involved, and confiscation of the entirety of both/all individuals properties. This law shall not be amended nor abolished in perpetuity.
I demand me and my neighbors should be able to operate and maintain a Main Battle Tank to protect the neighborhood.
Jefferson let a merchant captain put cannons on his ship to stop pirates lol
Constitutional right to Privateer. I'm tryna have an armada.
"Also add; Bill Clinton is a rapist infowars.com"
If you think about it, they did actually make it foolproof. “Shall not be infringed” pretty much says it all. But the communists don’t care and rationalize an explanation to stop whatever they want either way. Their explanations are nonsense and they infringe anyways.
So regardless what words would be used, the commies would just say whatever crap they can to justify violating them.
Commies aren't created equal, but guns fix that.
Birthright citizenship is number 1. Should have disqualified spouses of Presidents from running for POTUS.
This☝🏼️
Nobody back then believed we'd be letting bitches run things. And I didn't specifically say "women" I said "bitches". You don't specifically forbid that which you think could never happen in a million years.
Username checks out.
Arms doesn't just mean guns....
My only problem with the death penalty is with the statistics for wrongful prosecution. Once you get into the 1970's the numbers just explode. Being put to death for doing nothing is about as bad as I can imagine. And nobody cares it seems. Just look at who is running for POTUS right now.
CIA / Secret police should never be allowed
Secret societies should never be allowed
Digging entire civiliizations underground without knowledge, consent of the government who are paying for it all, should never be allowed (taxation without underground representation)
If you don't know what I'm talking about, google continuity of government underground bases
I would try to prevent the Democrat takeover of institutions such as education and the media to start.
"Yes you have to specify hand held mobile artillery. I know they're just lying around now but they won't in the future."
Magazine capacity.
Remove the opening, or at least the "general welfare / good and plenty" clause, or have a disclaimer that says "THE ACTUAL CONSTITUTION STARTS BELOW THIS LINE".
Define more rules for elections and how electors can be chosen so states can't just go "yeah we're gonna let dogs vote in this one".
Haha love this! 1st!
"Look, sir, the Bill of Rights is now forty hundred and score pages. We can't submit this! You've got provisions for lasers, phasers, mortars, cannons, new clear devices, bumpable stocks, 1000 round drums, and what the hell even is a lightsaber? Some sort of blade made of sunlight?"
"Some of that is speculative. Hey, I don't mind if you shorten it and make it more punchy, but trust me, you leave any loopholes the extreme left will pounce. I've got to go, I'm out of time. Literally, the machine is running on fumes. I trust you'll figure it out. Remember, succinct, but sufficiently broad in scope. You want this to cover weapons technology for at LEAST the next two millennia."
waaarrrrggglewhuuuuump
"Okay, let's see what they ultimately decided to keep... aw, shit. 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.' Well... at least it's capitalized this time."
The citizens shall own any weaponry the government owns.
That sounds more like a commandment. If I don't want to own a fighter jet I shouldn't have to. I think there should simply be no limits on what I can own and in fact the 2A already provides for that.