Comments by "Newbie Prepper" (@newbieprepper8451) on "God Punishing Children? Republicans Spread Lunacy Over Gun Debate" video.

i agree, but instead of just on the guns issue, why not on every issue. who gets money from big pharma, who gets money from special interest groups, who get money from foreign governments.
9
its always funny watching gun grabbers get into a tizzy over something that wont change.
4
we do have a limitation on serving terms, its called an election cycle. every politician goes up for re-election, and if the constituents dont like what the politician is doing then they vote him out of office and end their term, if they like what their politician is doing then they keep him in office. as for mandatory retirement, i completely agree, there should be no reason anyone in a position that dictates public policy should be allowed to stay past retirement age.
3
you are right, and their job is to uphold and protect the constitution,.
3
@OfficialSeth i have never been under the impression that our politicians give a chit about any part of our constitution.
3
same can be said about gun grabbers, they cite total gun deaths, including accidental shootings and suicides which make up over 66% of gun deaths. here is a statistic for you, according to AAA, up to 20% of fatal car accidents involve unlicensed drivers, even though it was an accident, i would consider it a deliberate act in violation of the law, and therefore a deliberate vehicular homicide.
2
@TheMisterGuy but age does play a role to an extent, you have to admit that an old person is more likely to suffer from declining mental ability than a younger person, are you OK with giving control of a millitary over to someone who statistically is on the verge of senility, or give control of the economy and foreign affairs over to someone who hasnt even been to school yet? age does play a role. as for capability and motive, no one is capable of determining a persons motive, motives are easily hidden behind a curtain of lies made to be endearing, look at Hitler, do you think all those speeches he made that made the public love him so much he revealed his motives?
2
@JordanS215 im not, im pointing out how impossible it would be to amend the constitution to take away gun rights in response to your comment about how "we can amend it".
2
@JordanS215 you can make all the legislation you want, its not going to solve the problem. taking away peoples rights doesnt stop criminals.
2
@Ander P wrong and wrong, read the 2a, then read it again, and then come back here and tell me that it says "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms." it doesnt, it states the right of the PEOPLE, that is you and I, militia has nothing to do with it. and every single accidental shooting, if you are a legal gun owner that abbided by the laws to get your gun, then the 2a IS your license to have a gun. name me any other right protected by the constitution that requires a license? democrats tried doing that with voting after the civil war, they tried passing laws that required people to get a license in order to vote, SCOTUS struck it down as an unconstitutional poll tax. but i like where you are going with this, lets make everyone get a license before exercising their right to free speech, or a license to get an abortion? maybe a license to vote. how about a license to be excempt from illegal search and seasures? LETS MAKE EVERYONE GET A LICENSE FOR EVERY RIGHT THEY USE. as far as licensing for firearms, SCOTUS has already ruled on several cases where concealed carry required a license and it was ruled unconstitutional to deny said permit.
1
@Ander P well, apparently you lack any logic, but please, point to any legal document that describes driving or the equivalent as a RIGHT? or electricians, yep, article 79 of the constitution claims electricians or any other proffesions are a right, its right after article 78 enshrining unicorns as Americas sacred animal. and yes, the militia IS the people, responsible gun owners. and yea, if you want to start infringing on other peoples rights, then its just as fair to infringe on yours as well. and for the record, please explain what the Heller decision by SCOTUS was? from my understanding, District of Columbia v. Heller originated in a suit filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., in 2003. In Parker v. District of Columbia, six residents of the federal District of Columbia asked the court to enjoin enforcement of three provisions of the district’s Firearms Control Regulation Act (1975) that generally banned the registration of handguns, prohibited the carrying of unlicensed handguns or any other “deadly or dangerous” weapon capable of being concealed, and required that lawfully stored firearms be disassembled or locked to prevent firing. The district court granted the government’s motion to dismiss. In 2007 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, after determining that only one of the plaintiffs, Dick Heller, had standing to sue (because only he had suffered an actual injury, the denial of his application for a license to possess a handgun), struck down the first and third provisions and limited the enforcement of the second. The government filed for certiorari, and the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on March 18, 2008. did you read that part? DICK HELLER HAD STANDING TO SUE BECAUSE OF THE DENIAL OF HIS APPLICATION FOR A LICENSE TO POSSESS A HANDGUN. to put it mildly, SCOTUS ruled in favor of Heller as a license to possess a handgun was unconstitutional.
1
because the police dont have a duty to save or protect anyone, that was ruled by SCOTUS.
1
@AniMana21 plenty of times incumbents get beat, look at AOC, perfect example, she beat an incumbent that had a strong advantage. if people really dont like their representative, then its on them to get rid of that politician, but creating an artificial term limit creates its own problems. lets say you have a politician that is really good, and he does his job right and everyone loves him, but its his last term and he cant run again, and the new hopefulls that are running are the worst? in a system that forces term limits people are forced to switch to something they may not like or know, where as in the current system people have a choice on the matter.
1
@jarredmartinez8963 you think republicans are the only ones gerrymandering anything? democrats do it too, and it doesnt mater who gerrymanders what, if the majority of people want to vote out their candidate then they do so. most of the time incumbents stay in power because of name recognition and a lazy voter base unwilling to do their job.
1
@Maya Nightwolf great way to support the American dream, tell your kids that they can be anything they want to be except president unless you spend hundreds of thousands on a university approved by some lefty dweeb.
1
@gargamel55 correct, its not a de facto guaranteed limitation on terms, but it gives the people a chance to decide if they want to limit a politicians term or not. if a politician is doing a good job, would you be happy with that politician being forced out and replaced with someone horrible because of hard term limits?
1
@Valvad0ss here is my boomer take on things, if you think the situation is so hopeless and gerrymandering has completely destroyed your ability to make a change and push a politician out, then stop voting completely, just stop, no more voting for you, and while you are at it, stop complaining about it too, no use complaining about something you have no hope in changing because of gerrymandering.
1
@TheMisterGuy and there you go, labeling people as "nazi", you just lost. i dont know Cawthorn, ive heard the name but didnt follow him specifically around to figure out his politics as he is not in my area. but if you want to talk about "nazis", something that they did was label people to bring hate against those people, they labeled jews as vermin to make others hate the jews, kind of like you are labeling Cawthorn as a nazi to make others hate him, one can easily say you are a nazi for the same reason and be accurate.
1
@Kelly_Ben i undrstand, and for the most part i agree and disagree at the same time. for example, you want term limits but then claim that age should not be a factor. what happens when you get a good politician and they are only 40 years old, and after 10 years they are thrown out because of term limits? they havent even reached retirement age yet and they have already served their time and are not allowed to serve. and yes, i would agree with the mental acuity tests, that would be a good idea, have it like they do for drivers licenses in some states, after a certain age, it is mandatory that you get a vision test and a driving road test. so implement a metal acuity test every 6 months past a certain age, not just during election, because a person can be of sound mind when elected, but then over a short period of time lose their marbles. now for the whole problem of lobyists and politicians making money. instilling term limits is not going to solve the problem of lobby money and politicians getting rich. a lot of those politicians get rich off buying into corporations that they know will benefit from their policies that are coming up for a vote, they buy stocks, or they have their friends or family buy stocks, look at Pelosi, her husband is a banker i believe, tell me he has not made banking and stock decisions based off what his wife has been doing in congress, of course he did, and it benefitted her immensly. most sweepstakes have rules in place where family members of company employees are disqualified from winning in a company sweepstakes, its in the fine print, there should be some kind of rule like that too. get rid of the lobbyists, most lobbyists donate money to politicians campaign funds, and those funds are used to hire people to campaign on the politicians behalf. case in point, AOC, now this is not to bash on her or anything, im positive other politicians if not most have done or are doing something similar, but just pointing out AOC since it was an item in the news recently, her PAC or campaign finance group whatever, paid several hundred thousand for re-election and campaign research to a company, that company had on their payroll AOC's fiance. now, as i said, im not bashing her directly, i dont think she did anything wrong in that since its not against the law, but tell me that she did not personally benefit from channeling campaign funds to a company where her fiance worked and would most likely be a beneficiary of those funds? i cant think of other examples of that, but i am positive that other politicians have done that and are doing that too on both sides of the isle. get rid of those lobbyists mostly by eliminating the need for politicians to raise extravagant amounts of money for elections. how much did Obama spend on his 2008 run? was it like half a billion or some crazy amount that was historic and record setting? most of that money is spend on ads. have the FCC force all broadcast companies to run politicians campaign adds for free and equally in order to maintain their broadcasting license. force Youtube and Facebook to run politicians adds equally for free in order to maintain their 230 protected standings. have Youtube produce politicians adds for free or lose their 230 protections. the examples of lobbying in or politics are too numerous to list and the process of legalized money laundering of campaign funds has become common place. limiting terms to 10 years is not going to solve the problem of corruption, it will simply push politicians to get corrupted faster since there will be a time limit on how long they can make money off their position. eliminate the need for huge sums of money in politics, and that may not solve the problem completely, but it will aleviate the problem drastically. a politician is not going to go corrupt if there is no profit in it and plenty of risk involved.
1
@sandorski56 you cant violate the constitution when looking after the general welfare.
1
@JordanS215 yes you can ammend it, which falls onto state legislations, NOT CONGRESS, to ammend the constitution. considering that there are more conservative state governments than liberal, how do you thing an attempt to ammend the constitution and remove 2a would be? so far it hasnt happened yet.
1
@JordanS215 why would i need to pass a test to exercise any constitutionally protected right? do you need to pass a test to get an abortion? or to speak freely? or to go worship at a church of your choosing? when was the last time you took a test so you could exercise your right to vote?
1
@JordanS215 legislation doesn't take away your rights? Really? Are you a wife beater or a criminal? If not then go to NYC and try to get a gun, and when you are not allowed, please explain how NYC legislation did not take away your right to keep and bear arms.
1
@BlackStar-hy1iy whats not a right? whats just a privilege?
1
@maribelcaudillo258 not all of them are paid by millionaires. Sanders doesnt get paid by millionaires. i doubt Trump gets paid by millionaires. there are others too that dont get paid by millionaires. sadly though, the ones that do get paid by millionaires outnub=mber the ones that dont.
1