I agree, people often do see it that way. I think if half of the population changes the constitution while the other half says not to, then that would justify a split, where the US should become two nations.
Why not examine political policies ‘case by case’?
A split on one issue unlikely justifies splitting the country. The status quo will simply remain.
Do you understand why some of us see this as truly crazy talk? How would the logistics of a national split work over a difference like this? Would everyone pack up from each side and do house swaps over the new national border or something?
Obama administration lures migrant children from Central America, then refuses to reveal the data on how many immigrants have flooded the border. The media is denied access.
Discussion of political parties or individuals is not allowed in this sub-forum, and it will cause this thread to be closed. So if you want to continue this thread…
Americans won’t follow these laws. Your only other option is to imprison half your population who will not turn over their weapons. Just trace their phone records to see if they’ve been in contact with gun shops and there’s enough reasonable suspicion to begin investigating. Check the gun logs, and there’s probable cause to make the arrests. Nice. Progressives criminalizing the traditional American citizen.
I said Obama administration. Not barrack Hussein Obama.
Are you against healthcare, or against that you have to have it? Do you prefer a situation whereby health insurance is something you can have if you earn enough money to afford it, but if not…tough luck? America is a terrible place to be ill if you don’t have health insurance!
So – you believe that if the requisite % of the American population and States agreed to change the Constitution to remove the right to own firearms, this would be rejected by large numbers of Americans? Democratic principles and the rule of law would be jettisoned? This is the argument that says the Constitution as written is “God-given”, for men will not accept it being changed, regardless of the will of the majority! Would you raise the same argument in defence of the abortion laws?Americans won’t follow these laws. Your only other option is to imprison half your population who will not turn over their weapons. Just trace their phone records to see if they’ve been in contact with gun shops and there’s enough reasonable suspicion to begin investigating. Check the gun logs, and there’s probable cause to make the arrests. Nice. Progressives criminalizing the traditional American citizen.
To be fair, Rau did ask Tepo “Why not examine political policies ‘case by case’?”… and Tepo obliged.
But this simply begs the question, rather than illuminating. Is it an essential liberty for you to own guns? I think not.
A bit selective in your quoting Georgia’s…I don’t think religious concerns underpinned his point!What an odd thing to say! A person can be against this administration’s plan for healthcare, especially in the ways that it tramples personal religious liberty, without being “against healthcare” in general…!
Then we think different. Course its not essential you practice your right to own a gun. Its not essential one lives in America in the land of the free either which I love and call home. Its not essential you defend yourself if need be either. Is it essential for my families safety and mine if need be, I sleep better. But I do believe its essential the rights are there for those who do feel the need to protect their family.
No that right is not there for everybody. It is there only for the strongest, the fittest and those that qualify for the right. Survival of the fittest rules.
Only in America, I know the kids need more structure and family activity. We should keep the needs and problems in order.
We do. You form a judgement about the merits of a gun in **your **hands, and conclude it is good. But the judgement that matters is on the merits of guns in the hands of just about anyone who wants one. For that is what this “right” delivers, and I see no good in that.