(Forum War)-AyeCappy vs World

[Grogggy]

Ever heard of the emoluments clause of the constitution Charles vain? Your man has already violated it dozens if times in the transition alone.

Ps...Clinton never once said take away second amendment. Let me guess, you also think Sandy Hook was a hoax...

[Most Lee Harmless]

The constitution was established to protect the citizens from tyrannical government.

The fact Clinton wanted to change the constitution and disallow Americans the right to bear arms is one of the largest contributing factors to her loss.

Once any would be president suggests amending the constitution they should be immediately disqualified from the running.

'Article Five of the United States Constitution detailed the two-step process for amending the nation's frame of government. Amendments must be properly Proposed and Ratified before becoming operative. This process was designed to strike a balance between the excesses of constant change and inflexibility.[1]
An amendment may be proposed and sent to the states for ratification by either:
The United States Congress, whenever a two-thirds majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives deem it necessary;
OR
A national convention, called by Congress for this purpose, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds (currently 34) of the states.
To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must be ratified by either (as determined by Congress):
The legislatures of three-fourths (currently 38) of the states, within the stipulated time period—if any;
OR
State ratifying conventions in three-fourths (currently 38) of the states, within the stipulated time period—if any.
Upon being properly ratified, an amendment becomes an operative addition to the Constitution.'

So, you would deny the President their constitutional right to propose an amendment to it? Or is that one of those rights which can only be correctly exercised by not exercising them?

[Vane]

No, I would not deny a president their constitutional right to "propose" an amendment, however I would certainly retract any potential vote I had for a would be president who proposed such, as so many Americans did.

Especially one as oppressive to the degree of removing another's "constitutional right" to defend themselves against such a government.

[Most Lee Harmless]

So, one of those right they can only exercise correctly by not exercising it at all... just as well, given the current Amendments include the Bill of Rights itself, who would have lost your vote for thinking up that one then? And given the Constitution itself contains the means to amend itself, would the Founding Fathers lose your vote too?

[Vane]

The founding fathers wrote it to protect the nation's citizens which is my argument from the start... clearly they have my vote.

Any form of government in favor of removing or amending a law put fourth by design to protect its citizens from tyranny is by default tyrannical itself. That's not to say added articles to protect the nation shouldn't be considered so yes my words on removing a candidate due to proposed amendments was not written very well I admit that.

[DezNutz]

Ever heard of the emoluments clause of the constitution Charles vain? Your man has already violated it dozens if times in the transition alone.

He hasn't violated anything. Trump has made nominations. Those nominations requiring confirmation by the Senate are not appointees until confirmed by the Senate. Those that don't require confirmation by the Senate don't take effect until January 20th, 2017. Those that are Representatives or Senators, only need to resign their current position before taking the appointment. Prime example: Hillary Clinton and John Kerry were both sitting Senators when nominated for Secretary of State and remained Senators until accepting the nomination and being confirmed.

[Lana]

So lets stick to the original point that you disputed--Do you believe that the Russians engaged in a sophisticated agitprop operation to influence the US elections or don't you?

Of course we can't quantify the exact influence it might of had on the election, fake news, et al. But to deny it happened is just plain stupid sauce.

I thought he was the chosen one, but not by Russians primarily...
https://thearcmag.com/remember-clinton- ... .8adjera0e

[DezNutz]

So lets stick to the original point that you disputed--Do you believe that the Russians engaged in a sophisticated agitprop operation to influence the US elections or don't you?

Of course we can't quantify the exact influence it might of had on the election, fake news, et al. But to deny it happened is just plain stupid sauce.

I thought he was the chosen one, but not by Russians primarily...
https://thearcmag.com/remember-clinton- ... .8adjera0e

Karma is a great thing.

[Donald Trump]

No, I would not deny a president their constitutional right to "propose" an amendment, however I would certainly retract any potential vote I had for a would be president who proposed such, as so many Americans did.

Especially one as oppressive to the degree of removing another's "constitutional right" to defend themselves against such a government.

Let us face the facts. If we took all the gun nuts in America and put them versus the US army. It is clear who would win. But, what is even more clear is the fact a rebellion in the USA is far from ever happening.

Just like the 18th amendment. They didn't remove it, they proposed a new Ammendment to declare it worthless.

What I have to say about the second ammendmebt is that its purpose is way outdated. The government can nuke a rebel to oblivion. The second amendment is more of a cultural thing than any practical. Yes, it causes problems (high murder rate, easy access to unlicensed guns, etc). But, too many Americans are use to having one.

But talking about taking away guns leaves an American short of breathe, almost, like a gun shot would.

[Most Lee Harmless]

As I understand it, there is no great campaign to remove the Second : what there is, is a move to restrict the terms of gun-ownership. Such as the ban on fully-automatic weapons : background checks, cool-off periods and such like. The pro-gun lobby, which, let's be realistic is the gun manufacturing industries PR tool, far from considering this acceptable, view it as a full-on assault on them and respond with a campaign for more guns and wider ownership, with no checks at all, save the ability to pay for them.
I like guns, I like shooting them : I have done so on a professional basis : Thus I am fully aware that a poorly handled weapon in ill-trained hands is a danger to the owner, any innocent soul nearby and, sadly, rarely to the threat before it. I have no quarrel with home-owners in remoter, ill-policed areas keeping a fire-arm for defence. I do fail to see how keeping a fully automatic weapon in an urban environment can be considered a public good. Link that to no or little training requirements, little consideration of the ability of the owner to use and keep the weapon safely and its a recipe for the ridiculous rate of accidental discharges, woundings and deaths seen each year, never mind those actually shot at in anger, but mostly missed. Indeed, the prime purpose of a weapon, to adequately and ably defend yourself, has been lost totally in the somewhat fundamentalist argument over gun controls of any kind.

When a civil right has to be secured over the bodies of dead school-children and some deem that a fair price, then what exactly is being protected?