You’ve kinda hit the nail on the head regarding the 2nd Amendment. The whole idea of it is for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And when a person running for office says publicly that they are coming to take away one of your constitutional rights if elected, it’s best to be prepared.
That is exactly what I was talking about. Horrifying that people would think that is the right answer to a duly elected government. If for example 70% of the people (and the 2/3 of Congress and the Senate) wanted to change part of the constitution (it consists of many amendments, that were put in place over time. So changes can happen and have happened), but you and the other 30% didn't want it to change. Does that mean you would call it a tyrannical government taking away your rights under the constitution and feel you have the right to use weapons against the government? What if it is 52% of the people and that party controlled the senate and congress and were able to push through a law you didn't like?
I was making a point and used 70% deliberately because at 70% of the people, I expected it would meet all of the other things needed. So thanks for clarifying. So now, assuming all of those criteria were met, if you were in the 30%, do you believe you should be able to start an armed rebellion? The last sentence of your post may have a typo. Are you saying "No" rebellion has taken place? Does that mean you are saying it won't happen and people will respect the process?
For umpteen year the media has been suggesting that several armed groups will be taking up arms against the government. Has yet to happen. Kind of like the boy who cried wolf. And here's the thing, if only a small percentage decided to rebel, it would be put down pretty quick. You'll need more than 30% of the population on you're side. Unless of course you're a current rioter.
OK, I get what you are saying. I hope your are right.
Ha! New term I heard from Denali, and it fits.
If I was a POC I'd be mad. The Democrats are playin' them for the votes, so obvious now it's insulting.
To Amend the Constitution, the amendment needs to pass by 2/3 vote in both the House and the Senate. If passed then it is "supposed" to be ratified through three fourths of the States to pass. It hasn't in the past.
Unfortunately, this is what so many people fail to understand. The Founders where petrified of a true Democracy. Our whole system is set up to protect the rights of the minority position -- and the majority can't just vote them rights away. The US is advanced citizenship.
Dude, Canada has performed a whopping 3.8 million tests, the United Tates has tested nearly 49 million. Do you understand that that the more people tested will result in more positives?
More tests does catch more positives but the 'percentage' of positives has increased too, from 4.4% positive in mid June to 7.8% as of 7/30.
Yes but at the same time the population you're testing is changing. Early on, you needed symptoms to test. Now you don't. The number they are not reporting is asymptomatic positives. Without that number, we don't know chit. In other words, how many people are actually sick vs. just carrying the virus?
Dude, do you realize that as a percentage of the population that is almost exactly the same level of testing?
