We the people will be able to vote on it. You must vote for retaining EITHER the First Amendment or the Second. Which doth thou choose? Why?

Great point. I gotta chuckle at the people who think that the early colonists and the authors of the Constitution were illiterate bumpkins. Nope, not the case. They were wise and intelligent. :)

I don't think we have any politians now, who can compare to the Founding Fathers. 

Well, ya got a point there. :)

Amazing that you quote something about the spirit of resistance and degrade the NFL players who take the knee to show resistance. I know you are a gun person. You choose that over the Constitution. I'm gonna ask. I expect others just like you do too. If it's so dam* important WHY DIDN'T THE FOUNDERS PUT IT FIRST? How  can the first rely on the second? When does the cart go before the horse? Thank you for your reply mc. This post was edited by RosieG at February 5, 2018 6:19 AM MST

I don't believe the order in which the amendments are placed has any bearing on their importance. They all are. :)

I disagree with thee completely and totally and unequivocally. What was most important to them was LISTED FIRST. If musket ownership were MOST IMPORTANT that would be listed first. I think free speech, freedom of religion and the right to gather peacefully to protest are INFINITELY more important than owning an AK47 or 5 million of them. But then I am not a gun person. I am not a fan of things that kill people or the people who use them for that matter. Different strokes ru. I gather you ARE  a gun person aren't you? Too bad.

I have no problem with you disagreeing with me. I don't agree with everything everybody says either. That's one of the things that makes life interesting. Am I a gun person? Well, I'm not sure what you mean by a gun person. If you mean do I embrace our right to keep and to bear arms as spelled out in the 2nd amendment, then yup, I'm a gun person. No need to say "too bad". I don't feel bad about our constitution and amendments. I like em. :) 

The gov is not saying they cannot protest. No protesters are being charged with a crime.
The people are saying don't disrespect my flag, my country, my military. The people also have a right to protest the protesters. 

They protest the murders of unarmed young black men by people who just walk away. The protest has ZERO to do with flag or country but you guys keep insisting it is. Just thought of a question.

No, the protest the country...some the cops, some for income inequality, and for there other causes. It does not matter they claim they doing it for, they are protesting during the a time when we/they are supposed to be honoring the flag, the country and the military. It is disrespectful to all. That makes it about the flag/country/military. Shame on them. 
If it is truly about the police, then let them turn and protest the police who are at the stadiums protecting them. 

By golly, I like your style. You got some good ole common sense goin on there. :)

Thank you.

Yes she does. I love her style too. ;)

The experience of Australia, the United Kingdom and just about everywhere else in the world gives the LIE to that statement. It's arrant nonsense, absolute bullsh*t. Nowhere else in the developed world has a gun fetish like America's - and neither do they have leaders that decry every piece of negative publicity from an undeniably free press as "fake". Our leaders wear the consequences of their mistakes, when Trump screws up he denies it even happened despite clear evidence to the contrary.

During the war with Japan, the Gen refused to invade the main land because of the 2nd amendment. 
I know speech is not free in UK or Australia...people can be jailed for words. I don't want that in the USA.
I can disagree with you but defend your right to say it. 


This post was edited by my2cents at February 6, 2018 6:10 AM MST

Again untrue. Japan couldn't reach the mainland (their intelligence regarding the carriers being in Pearl was incorrect), they were soundly spanked at Midway and that was the beginning of the end. They didn't make it to Australia either, we stopped them in New Guinea.
Nobody has ever been jailed for words in Australia, unless it's clearly hate speech and even then there has to be an obvious link to an act of violence, either planned or actual. So that's another misstatement of fact. It can attract a fine if it's offensive enough - personally I'd rather be fined for being an a$$hole than shot, given my druthers. This post was edited by Slartibartfast at February 6, 2018 6:19 AM MST

They could and did reach the US main land by submarine. But did not do a full invasion...I believe because of the people being armed. 
My bro in law is from Europe and when his parents came to visit, they fully expected everyone to have a handgun strapped to their sides. 

Of course they could reach the mainland by submarine, they got here that way too (we sunk a midget sub in Sydney Harbour). They couldn't reach the mainland with an effective invasion force, subs necessarily have a tiny limit to the number of personnel they can accommodate. They couldn't establish a beach head, their navy would have had to establish itself as an unbeatable power in the Pacific. After Midway, they KNEW their decimated fleet didn't have the punch.

https://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/man-jailed-for-posting-antisemitic-video-online-20110131-1abm3.html
<!--/data/user/0/com.samsung.android.app.notes/files/share/clipdata_180206_081646_812.sdoc-->

The question  is which do you choose ru? The Founders put the FIRST AMENDMENT FIRST. The second is the cart. The first is the horse. The cart goes nowhere without the horse. Which do you CHOOSE and why? The Constitution was written when muskets were the rage. Now we have automatic rifles, AK 47's and magazines with multiple rounds. I'm pretty sure the Founders didn't envision people owning DOZENS of weapons who would go out and buy more of them after every gun-related massacre. But that is exactly what gun people do. Every gun-related massacre makes gun sellers richer too. Rather sad I think but true. Thank you for your reply. Different strokes..

There were machine guns in their times. We have the right to arms because our government has arms...whatever they may be.

The thought of choosing to eliminate one of the amendments has never crossed my mind. Even in a hypothetical sense. Some hate freedom of speech and religion. Some hate the right to keep and bear arms. Some just hate the entire constitution and they have every right to do so. I don't hate any of it. I like it the way it is. :)