General Discussion

Ampersand Unicode

(503 posts)

25. #5 doesn't go far enough. Get rid of the 2A

Thu Nov 6, 2014, 07:38 PM

Nov 2014

Humans are too barbaric to be given the right to own, let alone use, deadly weapons at their discretion. By "deadly weapons" I mean things which were designed primarily if not solely to kill and/or maim another creature (not just a human one -- hunting should be banned too as we have plenty of food supply and nobody needs to shoot Bambi or else they'll starve).

You leave regulation to the states and you'll have the same crazies running amok in the rural/Confederate states which would probably choose not to regulate at all. Ban them entirely and destroy the factories once and for all. You want to fight, fight "as god intended" and face the consequences if someone gets hurt. Only cowards shoot from far away.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

30 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Would you support this constitutional amendment to counter Citizens United? [View all] Nye Bevan Nov 2014 OP

Would it include PAC's and labor unions? badtoworse Nov 2014 #1

No, I was trying to word it to only affect corporations (nt) Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #2

Then I wouldn't support it. badtoworse Nov 2014 #5

Fair enough (nt) Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #8

Most unions I'm familiar with Sgent Nov 2014 #29

Sounds like YarnAddict Nov 2014 #30

Citizens United needs to be TBF Nov 2014 #3

I'm not sure what you mean by "overturned in its entirety". Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #6

I'll stick with Move to Amend. nt Ykcutnek Nov 2014 #4

Their proposed amendment would allow cops to raid Planned Parenthood clinics, Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #7

No, just say that only natural-born persons have any political rights whatsoever. nt bemildred Nov 2014 #9

By "political rights" do you mean "constitutional rights"? Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #10

I mean the right to participate in politics. bemildred Nov 2014 #11

I would prefer the amendment to state that elections should be publicly funded. Calista241 Nov 2014 #12

+1. And make it a holiday. If we can celebrate the 4th of July, we can celebrate voting. nt bemildred Nov 2014 #14

An amendment stating "elections should be publicly funded" would not reverse Citizens United. Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #16

It doesn't go far enough meow2u3 Nov 2014 #13

Yeah, I like that too. You'd think it was obvious. nt bemildred Nov 2014 #15

Again, why strip away all of the constitutional protections of corporations, Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #17

So rights shouldn't extend to legal entities? Algernon Moncrieff Nov 2014 #19

Personhood shouldn't extend to legal entities nt meow2u3 Nov 2014 #20

As long as it is applied equally, I don't have a problem with it. Algernon Moncrieff Nov 2014 #21

I'd support a Congress who would pass a law to that effect... Algernon Moncrieff Nov 2014 #18

The issue with (A) is that there is nothing for the Supreme Court to enforce. Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #22

#5 doesn't go far enough. Get rid of the 2A Ampersand Unicode Nov 2014 #25

How would this amendment not subject an LLC like DU or an entity such as Planned Parenthood tritsofme Nov 2014 #23

It could. Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #24

I'm very wary of speech restrictions. tritsofme Nov 2014 #26

No. Too vague and arbitrary bluestateguy Nov 2014 #27

This amendment would enable Congress to impose monetary limits on corporate speech, Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #28