Which changes would you make to the constitution?

I love it, skunkape23! a reply to: skunkape23

originally posted by: butcherguy

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.

I haven't been called a conservative on these boards in a LONG time. Currently, I'm usually called a liberal. Kind of refreshing.

Could Germany have conquered Switzerland during WWII?

Yeah if Germany wanted to they could have. I think other concerns go in the way though, but I'm sure the Nazis had a plan or two up their sleeves to do that. Here we go:
Operation Tannenbaum

a reply to: Aazadan

This seems easy. Abolish the income tax. Change the second amendment to clarify it is the right of the people to bear arms. Seems to me some people get confused by the word militia and see it as giving that right to only a privileged class of citizens.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: butcherguy

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.

I haven't been called a conservative on these boards in a LONG time. Currently, I'm usually called a liberal. Kind of refreshing.

Could Germany have conquered Switzerland during WWII?

Yeah if Germany wanted to they could have. I think other concerns go in the way though, but I'm sure the Nazis had a plan or two up their sleeves to do that.

At least you are aware of how it feels to be labeled as something that you are not.

With regard to Switzerland, why didn't Germany absorb them?

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: butcherguy

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.

I haven't been called a conservative on these boards in a LONG time. Currently, I'm usually called a liberal. Kind of refreshing.

Could Germany have conquered Switzerland during WWII?

Yeah if Germany wanted to they could have. I think other concerns go in the way though, but I'm sure the Nazis had a plan or two up their sleeves to do that.

At least you are aware of how it feels to be labeled as something that you are not.

Honestly, it happens to everyone here. Sorry for the mislabel. In my defense that's why I used conservative and not Republican.

With regard to Switzerland, why didn't Germany absorb them?

This is the best I got.

Operation Tannenbaum

Hitler never gave the go-ahead, for reasons still uncertain today. Although the Wehrmacht feigned moves toward Switzerland in its offensives, it never attempted to invade. After D-Day, the operation was put on hold, and Switzerland remained neutral for the duration of the war.

1) IRS BE GONE!!!!

2) Term Limits and Pay - All elected officials may serve only 8 years maximum, and raise money only from individuals.
Maximum contribution of $200. Pay raises for elected officials only in next term after the previous term ended with maximum debt of $500 Billion or less, and a balanced budget for every year of that previous term.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
I have always wondered about Switzerland and WWII. It is enough to make me think that there were PTB running that war from behind the scenes, as in big bankers.

a reply to: butcherguy

With regard to Switzerland, why didn't Germany absorb them?

Where else would all the rich people hide all their money?

a reply to: butcherguy

Possibly. I wouldn't put it past them. Though Germany is mostly credited with financing the war through plundering the Jewish community, issuing counterfeit currencies, and borrowing loans from German industrialists (some American industrialists like Henry Ford may have financed them as well).

How did Hitler finance his war? Where did he find so much oil to run his vehicles?

Did Henry Ford finance Hitler and the Nazi Party?

originally posted by: harvestdog
a reply to: Aazadan

This seems easy. Abolish the income tax. Change the second amendment to clarify it is the right of the people to bear arms. Seems to me some people get confused by the word militia and see it as giving that right to only a privileged class of citizens.

And what taxes would you replace the income tax with? The government isn't going to give up a sizable chunk of it's income. If you remove the income tax they'll add a hundred other taxes in it's place.

a reply to: Aazadan

I would replace the income tax with nothing. They can still operate at their late nineties budget and still get things done. We have a budget that is so bloated that it is easy for them to not keep track of it, and be held unaccountable.

We functioned as a country for over 125 years with it. We have had a substantial growth of our government that is being used against our citizens. I would like to keep their funding limited to their enumerated powers.

originally posted by: harvestdog
a reply to: Aazadan

I would replace the income tax with nothing. They can still operate at their late nineties budget and still get things done. We have a budget that is so bloated that it is easy for them to not keep track of it, and be held unaccountable.

We functioned as a country for over 125 years with it. We have had a substantial growth of our government that is being used against our citizens. I would like to keep their funding limited to their enumerated powers.

But that wasn't the question, the scenario was remove one amendment and modify/clarify another. You chose to remove the income tax. You didn't cap the tax rate. So removing or even lowering the income tax simply means other things become taxed instead.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
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.

If the government were ever to turn against the people, the scenario would involve deeming a certain group outlaws and terrorists. Most people, including service personel would go along with it. The act of fighting back would even justify the terrorist label. The majority of the armed forces, including vets fought against terrorists trying to harm the country. They would not back that group. Furthermore, even if they did the government would have complete air and naval superiority. How easily can you get up next to a tank when there's some helicopters hovering over the battlefield shooting everyone on your side that moves?

True resistance to the government cannot be made physically these days which is what the second is all about. It can only be made by hitting the finances or using cyber weapons which is protected under the first rather than the second.

I'd get rid of 17th, direct election of senators which has served to weaken states say in federal government by unhitching senators from state legislatures.

Add,

Language making it a punishable offense with prison/fines to violate oath of office or present/pass/sign unconstitutional laws, rules, regulation or legislation.

There fixed..............

I said remove the income tax. What does capping the tax rate have to do with it? If I have lost my job, I do not look to steal money from other places to keep my standard of living. First I must take into account the loss of income and adjust my standard of living accordingly. Only then can I be in a position to find another source of income on the up and up.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
1. I'd add term limits to the Judicial branch and Congress. Something like 10 years max. Lifetime appointments like the Supreme Court are undemocratic & useless.

2. I'd get rid of the Electoral College & make federal elections require a simple majority. Then a President will always be the person who gets the most votes. And it wouldn't matter if you were in a "red" state or "blue" state because your vote would count equally.

I take it you're not a states rights person. #2 exists specifically as an issue of states rights. It forces candidates to goto smaller states with poor vote totals and make promises to those citizens. Rather than all of the power being in the hands of a few large cities, while the rural areas have no say at all. As an example of this in action, farmers in the midwest routinely extract concessions from candidates during campaign season but without the electoral college, no one would ever go visit the farmland and they would be completely ignored.

I'm into democracy. I don't think it's fair that the less than 600,000 in all of Wyoming have more power in Congress than the 600,000+ living in Memphis' city limits. I know why the system is the way it is, but I don't agree with that part of it.

originally posted by: Aazadan

If I had to kick something off, it would be the second. In a world where the government has WMD's, weaponized drones, bombers, tanks, and million dollar missiles I just don't see how owning a firearm in any way empowers making the government fear the people.



harvestdog speaking:
I also believe your premise of the 2nd Amendment being ONLY for resistance to tyranny is wrong.
I believe it is a God given right given to humankind to be able to protect themselves at all times. If only all people in all nations were allowed to exercise that right. I believe society would be better off to handle the problems caused by an extreme minority. Criminals.

edit on 9/4/2015 by harvestdog because: have to learn the quotes format

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Aazadan

Make non-violent activities unprosecutable
Term limits for congress

What about the various forms of theft? Like embezzlement, fraud, hacking, etc? If someone sneaks into your house & steals your most precious valuables, that should be non-prosecutable? And what about pedophile preachers, date-rape drugs, slander/libel? Or what about people like this dude who put meth in homemade energy drinks, unknown to his customers?

a reply to: enlightenedservant

I'm pretty sure those fall under the violent class of crimes.

originally posted by: Aazadan



13. Abolishes slavery
16. Income tax

13. Modify - Abolish "Debt" Slavery
16. Abolish - Income tax

A sales tax is Constitutional, incomes tax is not.

And to prevent debt slavery, the 13th would be
changes to prevent private banks from placing
anyone is debt slavery with money they create
out of thin air.