Is there a referendum in the United States (a democratic procedure)?
In a referendum, the people of the country may cancel the second amendment if the majority votes for cancellation.

Are referendums held in the US?

No national referendum. 2 way to change. State legislatures call for Constitutional Convention, or Congress proposes amendment. Then 3/4 of the states have to give assent. It was made hard to change on purpose.

No national referendum. 2 way to change. State legislatures call for Constitutional Convention, or Congress proposes amendment. Then 3/4 of the states have to give assent. It was made hard to change on purpose.

To complicate democratic procedures is the way to dictatorship.
Any democratic procedure must have simple rules and conditions.

Then what is democratic freedom? a rhetorical question)))

The USA is not a democracy and never was. It is a democratic-republic.
Democracies are subject to the tyranny of the majority. Individual rights get trampled in such countries. Rights such as free speech and freedom of association.

If a person buys weapons for terrorists, how to deal with it?

Very simple. They are a terrorist too.

(I assume you mean the person buying knew he was buying for a terrorist, if not then he is just a regular "straw buyer")

In the USA. we believe neither 51% of the population, nor 60%, nor 75%, nor 90% of the population in a Popular Vote, can diminish or end the Rights given to all individuals at birth.

Elections, in a truly Lawful Country, must have limited impact regarding Individual Rights.

What about the human right to life?

What is more important the right to life or the right to arms?

"right to life" is better discussed in these two threads
https://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=81600

https://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=77233
very hot topic

No national referendum. 2 way to change. State legislatures call for Constitutional Convention, or Congress proposes amendment. Then 3/4 of the states have to give assent. It was made hard to change on purpose.

To complicate democratic procedures is the way to dictatorship.
Any democratic procedure must have simple rules and conditions.

Then what is democratic freedom? a rhetorical question)))

The USA is not a democracy and never was. It is a democratic-republic.
Democracies are subject to the tyranny of the majority. Individual rights get trampled in such countries. Rights such as free speech and freedom of association.

Except it has probably gone too far. Someone in Wyoming has nearly four times the say that Gary has in the electoral college

If a person buys weapons for terrorists, how to deal with it?

Very simple. They are a terrorist too.

(I assume you mean the person buying knew he was buying for a terrorist, if not then he is just a regular "straw buyer")

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
It is forbidden to supply terrorists with weapons. I do not know how it is in the US, is there such a law?

And it is not knowledge, for whom you buy weapons, does not absolve from responsibility. You are also a terrorist.
This is called the fight against terrorism.
A person should think about why and to whom he buys weapons.

USA has law saying you can't buy a firearm for another. Called "straw purchase." Crime.
USA has law saying you can't aid or abet terrorist. Accomplice.
Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
Mens Rea <latin> is a requirement for conviction. You have to have criminal intent - or not care if it is criminal or not - in what you do to be convicted. That isn't the same as not knowing about a law. Fine point.
You tell your lawyer in advance what you want to do and ask, "Is it legal?" He says it is legal. You do it. Turns out lawyer was wrong. You can't be convicted because you took a reasonable step to be sure you didn't break the law by talking to a lawyer. Or you go to permit office and get permits and ask if those are all you need. They tell you no other permits needed. You build. Then someone says, you didn't get a needed permit. Not a crime. You did what a reasonable person would to be sure it was legal.

It is a fine difference, but if you had no clue the person you were buying for was a terrorist, they have told you a different story, then you can't have had the criminal intent to buy a weapon for a terrorist.

I know our legal systems are very different.

Except it has probably gone too far. Someone in Wyoming has nearly four times the say that Gary has in the electoral college

Yes. Perhaps we need to drop Senators from the count of voters in the electoral college and just go with representatives.

---

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-la-gangsters-homemade-guns-20180706-story.html

L.A. gangs stockpile untraceable 'ghost guns' that members make themselves

A small arsenal of weapons that authorities seized from gang members during a six-month undercover operation lay across the tables at LAPD’s Hollywood station Thursday.

It’s not unusual for the Los Angeles Police Department and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to grab high-power weapons during these types of sweeps.

But these AR-15-style semiautomatic rifles and pistols were different — homemade, untraceable “ghost guns” without the traditional serial numbers, built from parts purchased over the internet.

Authorities said they are seeing more gangs turn to homemade guns as it becomes more difficult to acquire real ones.

“Criminals are making their own weapons because they cannot buy them legally … or they are paying other people to make those guns for them to get around the gun laws,” said Bill McMullan, special agent in charge of ATF’s L.A. Field Division. “This is a trend among Southern California gangs.”

Investigators seized 45 firearms, as well as fake police ballistic vests, and eventually arrested 10 alleged gang members involved in the manufacture and sale of so-called ghost guns to criminals.

These weapons are effectively unknown to law enforcement, making them difficult to track or trace.

No, single issue, how to keep bad/crazy people away from guns.

Issue is who is a bad/crazy person.

There is only one person here who drones on about repealing the second amendment. Everyone else is defining who the members of the militia are.

Members of the militia have to get a tax stamp. Problem solved.

So a "bad/crazy person" with a legally owed and permitted 'gun' just stopped an assault in progress and prevented worse without firing a shot..............

Not a bad outcome I'd say except for the poor assaulted woman and the abject coward who attacks women.

And this is Milwaukee, not Chicago or New York City.

Another example from Dallas last week that didn't work out so well for the 'perp'.
https://newsone.com/3815678/carjacker-shot-face-dallas/

"There were no immediate charges against Booker-Hicks. Texas has a “Stand Your Ground” law that allows for a licensed citizen to use deadly force “if there is an imminent threat of harm or death, and when someone is unlawfully or forcefully entering your home, vehicle or place of business.” That’s the same type of law that allowed George Zimmerman to be acquitted of murder charges for shooting and killing teenager Trayvon Martin in Florida in 2014.

It shouldn’t even be a slight possibility that she will be charged. Let’s hope white people aren’t the only ones who can defend themselves when their life is in danger."

I sincerely hope that remains true.

Two more reasons that I, a 70 year old male with a handicap also chooses to legally carry a firearm. That is my personal decision and should not be construed as promoting anyone else does so unless that is their sincere wish.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Until the 2nd Amendment is repealed.

Who on here has asked for that?

Until the 2nd Amendment is repealed.

Who on here has asked for that?

Read the previous posts.

have done

I answered and posted the response to Gary's belief that this issue is confined to a handful of posters in there forums.

Show the evidence of that!

Reading through the thread all that can be seen is a request to clarify the definitions in the 2nd. Other requests were for it to be brought into line for the 21st century.

Nowhere can it be seen that the 2nd be repealed.

Sorry if you don't understand the many different and nuanced disagreement inside the USA.

2 words that you fail to understand, & you taught?
Clarification
Definition

Look them up. I know you're capable of doing so as your sermons on here confirm you know how to use a computer. :-)

Re-read message 1943443 :-)

Sorry if you don't understand the many different and nuanced disagreement inside the USA.

2 words that you fail to understand, & you taught?
Clarification
Definition

Look them up. I know you're capable of doing so as your sermons on here confirm you know how to use a computer. :-)

Hi Sirius B. Another personal attack.

Your victims, of course, must respond.

There seems to have been a misunderstanding here:

Clyde said "Until the 2nd Amendment is repealed."

Sirius said "Who on here has asked for that?"

Clyde replied "Read the previous posts."

Sirius replied "have done"

Clyde replied "I answered and posted the response to Gary's belief that this issue is confined to a handful of posters in there forums."

Sirius said "Show the evidence of that!

Reading through the thread all that can be seen is a request to clarify the definitions in the 2nd. Other requests were for it to be brought into line for the 21st century.

Nowhere can it be seen that the 2nd be repealed."

To which Clyde replied "Again, inside the USA, repeal or keep our 2nd Amendment is an issue for many.

Sorry if you don't understand the many different and nuanced disagreement inside the USA."

Which to me is answering a question Sirius did not ask and then berating him for not understanding!!

My replying to Sirius B.'s and Gary's belief that this Topic, and it's resulting problems inside the USA. Has to be only confined to the beliefs of a handful of posters.

Is silly.

You are you defending what imho, something that is incorrect.

Yes that is fine however, Sirius did not ask you about the whole USA he asked specifically "Who on here has asked for that" which to me meant who on these political forums has asked for that.

Not who in the USA has asked for the repeal of the 2nd amendment.

Sirius was asking for where "a handful of posters" had said repeal was necessary'

So why suddenly turn the argument inside out just because it was Sirius who asked.

I failed to understand why anyone would believe this issue was confined to only us.

To clarify just for you: A handful of posters" is more than two.
To clarify even further, it must be a very big hand to grab hold of two or more people :-)

So Mike Pence is an innocent virgin that wants to clean up the USA & sanctify life?
Never going to happen until the 2nd is brought into the 21st century.
As a former teacher you are aware that if the correct wording is not used in a statement, that statement leaves itself open to having it picked apart.

Since Sirius B. was asking what posters in this Topic were asking for...

And I understood that the debate in the USA is beyond a few here.

I failed to understand why anyone would believe this issue was confined to only us.

No Clyde, you answered Sirius with "read the previous posts", that was a direct answer to his question ""Who on here has asked for that?"

No explanation that you in fact don't actually mean "these forums" but the whole of the USA,

Your style leads to many many misunderstandings and complaints. You seem to have an idea in your head but do not put it across so that others can understand.

Either that or you are purposely trying to wind people up, but of course that would not be nice now would it.