Wouldn't It Be Best To Put The Gun Ban Issue To A Public Vote?

LOOK what happened when they put the Bammy thing to a 'vote', TWICE !

Let the states decide. This shouldn't be a federal matter.

WHY not mind your OWN business, Aussie ?

By the way, numb nuts, we ARE a REpublic, NOT a Democracy !

I think gay people should decide if straight people should be allowed to have guns.

They would just rig the fukin vote , just like they do any election !!!!

Voting's for pussies. Come and take it.

Yes. Yes it would. They can make this wedge issue for the 2014 congressional election. The constitution can be amended. is not that hard. In the 1990s they were going to amend the constitution so we could have non natural born citizens for president (Arhnold Swatzzenegger)

If the constitution is amended, every good american should turn in their guns.

No, it shouldn't. The constitution protects our right to own guns. It's perfectly clear and doesn't need to be voted on.

What if the proposed ban was only on assualt weapons?

This is a republic... so NO

i think your confusing this with a democracy

Okay, thanks.

If the President/Government was to decree a law banning guns, would you abide by it?

That is a dictatorship not a republic. America is a representative republic. We elect representatives that vote on things on our behalf. Why? So masses of dumb asses don't decide important issues. Someone once said (paraphrasing) in a group of 5, 3 wolves, and 2 sheep, a democracy is the Wolves voting to have sheep for dinner.

It's why the system was set up the way it is.

Such a "law" would be null and void, as it directly contradicts the Constitution.

Thus, there would be no "law" to abide. You are mistaken on what the law of the land is.

The 2nd Amendment, the government will never remove all of their assault weapons in their arsenal to level the playing field thus neither should the citizens. The 2nd Amendment was meant to keep the population armed and capable to defend themselves against government tyranny, which still occurs worldwide.

Having assault weapons ensures that we can maintain our freedoms if necessary and not be slaves to the whims of government as you are it is called the balance of power and maintaining the status quo without actual force.

It might be a good thing that you have been brainwashed and conditioned to believe the government will care for you and protect you because if the world economic conditions further falter reality will be a hard pill to swallow.

I don't give a fuck what they do...Vote? HA-HA!!!!They ain't gettin' my guns!!!!!!!!!!!!

It shouldn't even be an issue.

At what point do you stop a ban if you start?

Plastic knives and boxcutters have been implicated in many homicides.

Cavemen used wooden sticks. Are we to ban those?


It's protected. Local, state, fed has no rule over it.

The only power they have is what the people give to them.

You will be excused for your ignorance since you bear the Aussie flag. The 2nd Amend to the U.S. Const covers this issue until either the U.S. Sup Ct or the Congress takes the appropriate action concerning this matter. The Ct. could place limitations by taking either a narrow or broad interpretation. The U.S. Congress could pass another Amend either clarifying or rescinding the 2nd. but this would have to follow the Amend process which would then require 3/4 of the States to agree. There are other Amend ways which need not be discussed here at the moment.

You presume too much. I have made no comment as to my opinions on this issue. I simply posed a question.

Thank you for your comments on the 2nd Amendment; with these I agree.

This is where you fail. We are not a democracy, we are a REPUBLIC. And second, our Constitution is not up for a public vote. That would take a Constitutional Convention.

Okay, thanks, but my question still stands or am I to assume that you think it would be best to not put this issue to a public vote?

Are you DENSE???
He just told you why you CANNOT have a public vote on this.



Last Edited by Useless Cookie Eater on 12/22/2012 10:01 PM

To what purpose a SHOW of HANDS so to speak. This would have no legal effect at all.

Make up a poll here OP and let's see what happens.
But only for American's to vote.

I am asking what people think would be best.

The ban on machine guns that was passed in 1930 sure stopped Machine Gun Kelly from owning a machine gun. Here's an interesting read from a column published in 1989: [link to www.stephenhalbrook.com]

ABSOLUTELY NOT! That would be democratic activity, and the US is not a democracy - it is a Republic! Once you start letting the people govern themselves, you transfer control from the few to the masses - and that's EVIL! Down with democracy!

Not a good idea. They have voter fraud down to a science now to gain any desired effect.

best for you to research the Constitution and learn what the process is to change an amendment or revoke one.

At this point, I think it best to redirect my energies elsewhere and consider my question answered in an obtuse kind of way.

Cheers,