Heard a rumor, from a fairly reliable source, that one is being organized as we speak. Its a slow process I was told.

Again, its a rumor...

I believe that our biggest downfall is removing personal responsibility. This is a growing trend to which I believe is partially, and directly responsible for the increase in mental instability.

Whether it be caused by the influence of parents, or teachers, etc. Inevitably people are the cause.

I would propose an amendment(s) that:

Restricts congressional pay to the median salary of american workers.

Takes away congressional pensions and places congress members on social security.

Removes any congressional heath plan and places congress members on our national health plan.

Limits campaign funds spent on campaigning.

Makes it a requirement that in order to serve in congress, you must remove your money from the stock market.


Also, I would like to see a federal law that would grandfather property taxes, so rates cannot be raised after you purchase property forcing you out of your home/land.


I would also like to see some serious work done on agriculture. Mainly restrictions on genetic engineering, and things of that nature.

Perhaps someone should let the police know this statistic. Or the body guards of our politicians, to include our own president. After all the numbers show they would be safer if they were not around guns.

or perhaps these numbers don't tell the whole story...

Interesting, im pretty sure shooting someone in the back does not fall under "stand your ground".

Perhaps its not the law, but the lack of prosecution in this case. Would have to know more

The answer to that comment is simple. In the second half the of sentence we the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be INFRINGED".

When one reads the declaration of independence, and comments left by some of our founding fathers, one could reach an understanding that the purpose of the right was to allow people to protect themselves from local threats, allow people to protect the country from invasion, and to keep our governmental powers from sliding into a despotic mindset.

As I stated before, power corrupts. This is a fact, and this fact is completely timeless.

That being said...

I understand you standpoint of wanting some form of regulation. The request is not unreasonable. I believe, however, there is plenty on the books(in fact a little too much), it's just ill-enforced. New laws cannot change that.

I have jumped through many-a-hoop to obtain certain types of firearms so I am not avidly against such a process. But when you make these processes a requirement for nearly every type of firearm, it is no longer worth it. Waiting several months, multiple fingerprinting, asking the local police chief permission, dishing out hundreds or thousands in extra fees, eventually makes things unobtainable for the "average joe". Notions to jack up taxes on ammunition, only allow a certain amount be purchased, or even owned at one time, is just ludicrous as proficiency is a responsibility of firearm owners. It takes a lot of ammo to remain proficient.

The push for further regulation may have received a much larger backing if the proposals didn't include what was mentioned above, plus bans on guns that look "scary" (things like flash hiders, heat shields, various forms of ergonomically correct accessories), magazine sizes, etc. Those doing the pushing displayed no knowledge of firearms in the first place.

I, for one, am glad the people pushed back as hard as they did, as the initial demand for more gun control was a complete Knee-jerk reaction of which there was given no actual thought. Everything was based on emotion, and thus was met with another emotional response.

No one is denying history.

What those "ignorant" white folks believe, is that we are equals now, and should be treated as such.

There is a flip side to this and it is very real. There are many from minorities who are innocently over vigilant.

Many see two people (a white and black person) go for a job with similar credentials, the white person gets the job and they ASSUME there is racism there.

Many will see schools that are predominantly black fall below national standards, and they ASSUME its being underfunded because of the black population.

If some people see a group of 1,000 workers, and only 3 are black, the employer must be racist.

MsHarmony, we can agree to disagree on this subject.

Again, be careful what you believe.

I've trained with foreign troops on U.S. soil. We conducted searches on makeshift buildings, door to door. We even tested new military technology.

But this was in preparation for Iraq/Afghanistan, etc.

America's military is, and has been, a "world police" force for decades. The training will reflect that. We even did light training on crowd control measures.

Don't loose too much sleep from this.

Thought they were Africans, not "blacks"... Saying "black" is the same as saying "white"

African American, on the other hand, is different.

Irish Americans

Italian Americans

German Americans

Native Americans

Now, for African Americans to have "black pride" but find it offensive for Irish Americans to have "white pride", would that not be the very definition of hypocrisy?

Why do blacks need BET? They have a place everywhere whites do today (legally). And if whites have WET and blacks are allowed to join,then we are supporting EQUALITY, not segregation. Innocent ignorance, no? It can run on both sides of this issue. Both races should be treated the same IMHO.

I find this interesting as the National Socialists supported and implemented;

Free education
Free Healthcare
Strict Gun regulation
Heavy regulation and control of industry
High taxes (as a result of all the above)


Not sure there are many conservatives that would align themselves under those ideals. Just because they were "pro war" does not mean they were "right wing".

I agree with most of what you are saying. But now they are all inclusive, why can't whites have WET, but include blacks? Why, if we are treating all races the same, would it be so much more offensive?

Sounds like Obama's "warning" about the sequester...

Scare tactics.

Seems as though our government is too bloated for its own good and may be in need of spending cuts.

One should choose those cuts wisely, however...

I guess where any of this becomes offensive is now, Blacks have ABC, CBS, and NBC along with whites, and now they have BET which are exclusive to whites (or any other race).

I personally don't find this offensive, but i would find it Hippocratic if blacks got offended if/when whites started their own television network exclusively for whites.

Congress is now composed of both and has not been exclusive for a while. So blacks no have congress, along with whites, and NAACP.

Again, I am not personally offended by any of this, but I can see where some could be.

There is a pattern I have seen. Before one can be segregated, he/she must first be separated. I believe this is the flaw in our system.

Believe not everything you see and hear.

Closest fact I've heard is the current administration signing a treaty allowing the U.N. to deploy troops on U.S. soil. This was a while ago, however.

Rest assured such an act would be met by many well armed objections, to which, the U.N. has a history of not being able to stomach, making it an unlikely occurrence.

I believe the "terrorists" in question are deliberately attacking civilians to spread fear, or "terror" if you will. Civilians killed by these people are not collateral damage when attacking a target, they are the target. This tactic is highly immoral and cowardice at its very best.

Although I do agree with there being a very blurred line between the being a freedom fighter and a terrorist. The terms are often confused, or misused for political reasons.

Perhaps it was a turf-related gang incident....

Either way, an example of lifting strict gun regulations leading to lives saved, and crooks in prison littered with holes . Perhaps the people CAN be trusted.

I wonder how the title "Declaration of Independence" turned into the topic titled "Whats not in the constitution".

I think where you are getting confused is lumping constitutionalists into a category that only speaks of the constitution itself, and only believes in the literal direct translation of the constitution.

Don't personally know any people like that with the exception of MAYBE one or two hardcore liberals who happen to be lawyers... (Ironically they are not here on mingle)

You confuse me MsHarmony. They are separate documents, but they are linked. I don't really think the people that you are seemingly trying to educate exist here on mingle. Or are trying to counter you...

No one stated that direct quotes you gave are in the constitution word for word.

So, what exactly are you trying to achieve?