What's new

Thoughts and Prayers

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 365
  • Start date Start date
Well, it is called an amendment, to be fair. I think it certainly could and will happen when today's youth starts voting. Do you read Reddit by chance?

It takes 38 states to ratify a proposed amendment in order for it to take effect - - that just leaves 12 that can vote against ratification. (maybe 13, depending how DC fits into the equation)

But before it can even get to the ratification stage, it must be approved by a 2/3 majority in both the US House and US Senate.

So no, it's not likely to happen any time soon.
 
It takes 38 states to ratify a proposed amendment in order for it to take effect - - that just leaves 12 that can vote against ratification. (maybe 13, depending how DC fits into the equation)

But before it can even get to the ratification stage, it must be approved by a 2/3 majority in both the US House and US Senate.

So no, it's not likely to happen any time soon.
I bet it will happen within the next 10 to 20 years. Certainly, sometime in our lifetime.
 
It takes 38 states to ratify a proposed amendment in order for it to take effect - - that just leaves 12 that can vote against ratification. (maybe 13, depending how DC fits into the equation)

But before it can even get to the ratification stage, it must be approved by a 2/3 majority in both the US House and US Senate.

and to clarify, states don't have to actually vote "against" ratification - - taking no action has essentially the same effect
 
You're too old to have any hope Archie.
Nah, dude. I have hope because I've seen our country and culture change so much over the course of my life. Sometimes change takes a while to happen, but in the grand scheme of things, we're rapidly changing.
 
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/gun-control-republicans-consider-grvo/

Not sure if this has been discussed or not.

I think this is a really good option.

Ths is necessary common sense in many cases.... being on certain psycotropic drugs should be preceeded by such a GVRO stipulation, for example. Having association with certain types of FBI agents and CIA agents who are known to have megalomaniacal assignments with these fundamentally anti-US Constitutional agencies should be grounds for GVROs.....
These provisions would have stopped 27 of our last 30 mass shooting incidents....

hmmm...... wait..... we should end these kinds of government-paid-for lawbreaker agencies. All together.

#FBINOMO. #NOMOSPOOKS.

It would also be a good idea to have a PCRO for some people. A Political Candidacy Restraining Order. Such an order would make certain people ineligible to run for political office of any kind. If a person expresses belief in irrational anti-US Constitutional political ideologies like Marxism, for example. Or support for an anti-Constitutional fascist World Government that does not require officeholders to be subject to voter approval, election campaigns or oaths of affirmation of supporting fundamental human rights.... such as gun ownership, free speech, free assembly, limits on actions law enforcement officers can do... no warrantless search and seizure of private property(no tolerance for "war crimes" like the War on Drugs' asset forfeiture.

It would be great to get certifiable law-breaking loonies like Hillary Clinton out of our political life.

Another excellent idea is to require professionals who specialize in law enforcement and court work ineligible for public office in the legislative and executive branches of government. Too much conflict of interest, folks. These people have professionally taken up a sort of warfare against the rule of ordinary citizens in our country.

#NOMOCROOKS. #PEOPLE'SGOV.

We gotta take down our Administrative Courts.

(sigh) won't happen as long as we let government run our schools, as long as we retain tenure for insane college profs who teach communism/progressivism, and do not teach anyone about ordinary human rights and precautions against runaway governments.
 
I'm not a fan of Trump, but since I'm willing to find common ground and I want what's best, or at least in my opinion, for our country, I approve of him trying to ban bump stocks.

Hopefully, next we'll see ARs banned. I get that to some they are fun to shoot at the range, but I don't get why anyone should own one.
 
I'm not a fan of Trump, but since I'm willing to find common ground and I want what's best, or at least in my opinion, for our country, I approve of him trying to ban bump stocks.

Hopefully, next we'll see ARs banned. I get that to some they are fun to shoot at the range, but I don't get why anyone should own one.

We don't even have automatic rifles banned...why would we ban AR-15's?

And why just AR's and not semi-automatic rifles. Is there a significant difference to you? Because there really isn't a difference at all.
 
We don't even have automatic rifles banned...why would we ban AR-15's?

And why just AR's and not semi-automatic rifles. Is there a significant difference to you? Because there really isn't a difference at all.

1. Didn't reference AR 15s (to be completely honest, I don't know a lot about ARs.
2. I'm in favor of banning both. I'd rather see fully automatic banned first if I had to choose though.
 
1. Didn't reference AR 15s (to be completely honest, I don't know a lot about ARs.
2. I'm in favor of banning both. I'd rather see fully automatic banned first if I had to choose though.
Because of all the crime and murder committed with fully automatic rifles?
 
1. Didn't reference AR 15s (to be completely honest, I don't know a lot about ARs.
2. I'm in favor of banning both. I'd rather see fully automatic banned first if I had to choose though.

AR's and AR-15's are usually used synonymously by most people, I just assumed you were doing the same. I think I'm order for people to actually be accurate, they should just say semi-automatic rifle. Of course, expecting people to be accurate when discussing banning things they clearly know nothing about is quite difficult.

I don't believe an automatic rifle has ever been used in a mass shooting (excluding war). Why should we ban them? We don't have a problem there.
 
Back
Top