Which changes would you make to the constitution?

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Metallicus

See, the thing is I'm very pro 2nd. I just don't think it's very effective anymore. If the purpose of the second is to oppose the government, then at best you have a combat rifle equal to that of your opposition. But in addition to their rifle they have body armor, more ammunition, complete air superiority, complete naval superiority, cyber weapons, leverage with the banks, and more. Back when things were written the army and the individual were on an equal playing field. But today that is no longer the case. You get 10 cent bullets while they get million dollar cruise missiles.

Outside of the ability to feel secure in your ability to protect yourself from attack, what does the second do? It's primary purpose has been eliminated through the cheers of increased military spending.

I can sympathize with your logic, it is a fair point.

Ultimately, I think that removing all restrictions such that individuals can possess arms of sufficient caliber (pun intended but, I mean robotic defense systems, drones and heavy weapons) to represent a significant check against tyranny and up armored criminals.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Metallicus

See, the thing is I'm very pro 2nd. I just don't think it's very effective anymore. If the purpose of the second is to oppose the government, then at best you have a combat rifle equal to that of your opposition. But in addition to their rifle they have body armor, more ammunition, complete air superiority, complete naval superiority, cyber weapons, leverage with the banks, and more. Back when things were written the army and the individual were on an equal playing field. But today that is no longer the case. You get 10 cent bullets while they get million dollar cruise missiles.

Outside of the ability to feel secure in your ability to protect yourself from attack, what does the second do? It's primary purpose has been eliminated through the cheers of increased military spending.

I can sympathize with your logic, it is a fair point.

Ultimately, I think that removing all restrictions such that individuals can possess arms of sufficient caliber (pun intended but, I mean robotic defense systems, drones and heavy weapons) to represent a significant check against tyranny and up armored criminals.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: butcherguy
Add an amendment that prohibits the government from borrowing money.

That would bankrupt and then destroy the country the first time we were to enter a major war.

Not if the government was prepared for such things.
If we had libertarians running things, we could cut taxes and have a surplus every year.

Anyway, if you listen to a lot of members here, the eventuality that you predict would make a lot of people happy.

Impossible. No major war has been financed straight from the government's coffers. It's ALWAYS on bowered money. Without financing there would be no way our country could keep up with the escalation of force that happens within wars.

For instance, WWII was HEAVILY financed. If it weren't, we would never have made a difference upon entering the war.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
It has never been done, so it is impossible.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Krazysh0t
It has never been done, so it is impossible.

It hasn't been done because it is a reckless and ludicrous way to fight a war. It is impossible because any country that tried it would quickly lose the war of attrition.

Wasn't that the deal with greenbacks?
Government-printed money to pay soldiers?

Certainly a better option than borrowing privately owned bankster money...

None, the only thing you have to do is

1) know about it,
2) respect it,

and most importantly of all (and this is why the current constitution is just a piece of paper)

3) DEFEND it

Get your butts off the armchair and defend it. IN NUMBERS: BIG NUMBERS:

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Krazysh0t
It has never been done, so it is impossible.

It hasn't been done because it is a reckless and ludicrous way to fight a war. It is impossible because any country that tried it would quickly lose the war of attrition.

If there were provisions to borrow in the event of a war, just to finance it, do you think Congress might just declare war to borrow money?

a reply to: butcherguy

Is that a rhetorical question? Because the answer is obvious. Of course they will.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: butcherguy

Is that a rhetorical question? Because the answer is obvious. Of course they will.

Of course it was rhetorical.
See what I mean?
Congress borrowing money is a fail. They would start a war just to be able to do it.

a reply to: butcherguy

Congress borrowing money really isn't an issue. All governments run on debt. It's when that debt expenditure gets too out of hand that it becomes a problem. I have no problem with Congress borrowing money.

Like I said, your scenario would have us destroyed and overran by the first country that decided to attack us. They'd just drain our surplus until the government was broke then ride in. I thought you ultra-conservative types were for a strong military and adequate defense? Your suggestion is literally suicidal if not outright insane.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
Ultra-conservative?

a reply to: butcherguy

You aren't? Fine. Same question except substitute "conservative" for "ultra-conservative". It's the same platform. I know -I- want a strong military defense.

a reply to: alldaylong

NATZI!

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: butcherguy

You aren't? Fine. Same question except substitute "conservative" for "ultra-conservative". It's the same platform. I know -I- want a strong military defense.

Do you know a lot of conservatives that support these things?
-A woman's right to choose.
-Decriminalization of all drugs.

^ That's me right there^

a reply to: Aazadan

The numbers and veterans have an operational knowledge that active units couldn't counter ,tanks ,aircraft of any type all require basing and have logistical vulnerability.
You can counter an M1A3 with a homemade thermite grenade in the rear of the turret,all you have to do is tie up ground troops and get close.
Protocols and BY THE book martial law would be countered by active duty troops as well until more malleable progressives could be in place who would perform such criminal acts. Their resolve might not hold either when THEY dummy up .
I have faith in the rank and file military to uphold their oath as I would to fight and if neccessary DIE to maintain the Constitution.
Hence 30 rd mags and the nasty black rifles..AT LEAST 1 million.
Bundy Ranch occured because of a percieved breach of law,can you imagne what would happen if the started SHOOTING civillians in a military operational fashion?

WE can WE are exprets and have the training, battle knowledge and resolve.

I would support the inclusion of term limits for all elected officials and political appointments. In addition, the elimination of political parties where a candidate could only be identified by their ideals and past behavior as opposed to whether they had a R, D, or I in front of their name.

a reply to: butcherguy

So is your point here that you don't want to have a strong military defense?

originally posted by: acackohfcc
I would add an amendment that corporations are NOT people

Amen!

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: butcherguy

So is your point here that you don't want to have a strong military defense?

It sounds like you are the conservative, is my point. You were calling me an ultra-conservative, then 'just' a conservative in successive posts. I thought maybe you had some new definition of the term to enlighten me.

Could Germany have conquered Switzerland during WWII?