Isn't the solution obvious?

Seems like you know something on the subject so why the idiotic comment at the beginning? I still vote that you were drunk.

An original primer was fulminate of mercury. You can watch Breaking Bad to see how it was put to use. In a vented area desolve a small amount of mercury in nitric acid. The gas coming off the mix could be fatal hence the ventilation. Add a larger amount of ethanol to the mixture. (Considering some of the people here I won't give measurements but you can always look them up) The solution will heat up and crystals will start to form. Continue to add water to clean the crystals. They are highly explosive from friction, heat, or concussion. Enjoy yourself and hopefully no one else is around when you make a mistake.

The constitution provides US citizens the right to bear arms. The SCOTUS would surely rule that those arms would be effective/usable. Originally Posted by deacon

That's just speculation. Would you imagine that the SCOTUS would rule that way in 3 years? 5 years? Care to place a bet? The Heller decision was only a 5 to 4 ruling.

"The Oxford English Dictionary defines the term to bear arms as: "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight," dating to about 1330." Bear arms (plural) always refers to war. One does not bear arms against a rabbit.

The 2nd should be understood as: AS LONG AS a well-regulated MILITIA is needed for the security of a free state, *and* AS LONG AS privately held arms are needed to maintain that militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That need ended over a hundred years ago. We have a $800 Billion per year military to provide security nowadays.

Seems like you know something on the subject so why the idiotic comment at the beginning? I still vote that you were drunk.

An original primer was fulminate of mercury. You can watch Breaking Bad to see how it was put to use. In a vented area desolve a small amount of mercury in nitric acid. The gas coming off the mix could be fatal hence the ventilation. Add a larger amount of ethanol to the mixture. (Considering some of the people here I won't give measurements but you can always look them up) The solution will heat up and crystals will start to form. Continue to add water to clean the crystals. They are highly explosive from friction, heat, or concussion. Enjoy yourself and hopefully no one else is around when you make a mistake. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

If you outlaw primers then only outlaws will h...BOOM! They'll blow their asses up.

longermonger has the right to breathe in oxygen but it is apparent that he forgets on occasion... Originally Posted by deacon

I breathe fire.
<<<see avatar

Longer is so liberal he scares other liberals, what you are experiencing with him here is the desperation of the left side tryng to save gu control since their President did not go far enough on his own, and they no their is no hope through legislation. Oh and longer you can try and discredit me all you want, I am a former criminal who paid his price to society and changed my ways, I pay far more in taxes and contribute far more to society then you ever will. The fact remains, yes I am an x criminal, but you are and will forever remain a women beater with erectile dysfunctions, have you beat anymore women lately.

Oh by the way, how am I the leader in this, I expressed an opinion based on life experiences, it is flattering that you acknowlegded the wisdom of my words and conceded that what I was saying was right and a threat to your cause. By the way is this a paying position, should I expect some kind of check. So now why dont you return to the rock you have been hiding under, and stop trying to start shit with me.

I breathe fire.
<<<see avatar Originally Posted by Longermonger

Yeah, thats why they invented mouthwash and a toothbrush.

The constitution provides US citizens the right to bear arms. The SCOTUS would surely rule that those arms would be effective/usable. Originally Posted by deacon

That's just speculation. Would you imagine that the SCOTUS would rule that way in 3 years? 5 years? Care to place a bet? The Heller decision was only a 5 to 4 ruling.

"The Oxford English Dictionary defines the term to bear arms as: "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight," dating to about 1330." Bear arms (plural) always refers to war. One does not bear arms against a rabbit.

The 2nd should be understood as: AS LONG AS a well-regulated MILITIA is needed for the security of a free state, *and* AS LONG AS privately held arms are needed to maintain that militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That need ended over a hundred years ago. We have a $800 Billion per year military to provide security nowadays. Originally Posted by Longermonger

The Constitution does NOT give rights to the citizens, it prevents the government from taking rights AWAY from the citizens.

The Constitution does NOT give rights to the citizens, it prevents the government from taking rights AWAY from the citizens. Originally Posted by cynic

Well, it used to until convenience and personal philosophy got in the way and left freedom standing by the road with its thumb out. Read the 2nd amendment thread renewal notice sponsor above to illustrate the point, then try getting on an airplane or stopping the government from doing about anything, particularly if it involves search and seizure. Conservatives like to water down Amendments 1, 4,5, and 6; liberals water down 2 and read what they want into the rest. It's a wonder we have any.

Yea, that wonderful iron clad Constitution...why on Earth were there ANY changes or additions to it.

We still should have slavery...and why on Earth should women have the right to vote.

Like everything else, no matter how solid something is written...when it gets to 300 years old, do you throw it out? Of course not, but no matter what it is....eventually there will be parts that need to be updated

Plus whatever happen to separation of Church and State...that line got fuzzy a long time ago.

And how exactly were slavery and women's suffrage changed?

Amendment.

If the second amendment is so antiquated, change it....don't come up with gimmicks to go around it. This whole gun debate shouldn't be that complicated.

Lacrew,,,If you are asking how was the Constitution changed, in order to update it to a more modern version...which was my point in above post...

13th Amendment, abolishing slavery passed 4/8/1864

19th Amendment, allowing women's right to vote, passed 8/18/1920

IMO, the second amendment should not be abolished, just changed to reflect modern era of guns

And despite my position, you are wrong when you say the whole gun debate shouldn't be that complicated...there are strong arguments on both side

When you say 'just change', the only option is to amend it. There is no alternative method to (legally) change the constitution.

And yes it really is that simple. If you don't agree with the second amendment, amend the constitution. It only gets complicated when people don't accept that reality and start getting inventive in their work arounds. The first amendment isn't that complicated....why does the second one have to be? Either the people have the right to bear arms or they don't.

Ok, lacrew...just shoot me (pun intended) when I said "just change" I, of course meant amend it.

It's been awhile since I had my US history class...so forgive me for memory lost.

However, if I recall correctly...for an amendment (as oppose to the wording of "change") I think the following must happen....

1) 2/3 of both House and Senate must approve the amendment

2) Then 3/4's of the states must approve the amendment

3) Does not require President's signature...not real sure about that one, lol

I think there was a 2nd far more complex way, where the amendment can start at the state level...but I did not have enough room on my wrist for "cheat sheets" on that one...way back when, so I passed on answering that question

I don't know what your definition of "simple" is. But look at all the nonsense that happen with the fiscal cliff...by both sides.

If you think it's simple...I've got some great beach front property down in New Mexico, I would luv to talk to you about, if you think all it takes is "the peoples' voices to change anything in DC, now days

Just because the political will to amend the constitution isn't there, it doesn't mean the process is complicated. As you pointed out, the process is clear well spelled out. And quite simply, if you don't think the amendment would survive that process, well then the good people of this nation aren't ready to change it.

I hear what you are saying...but unfortunately I don't think this Congress could all agree on whether the toliet paper needs changing in the Congressional bathrooms.

What a void in leadership in DC we have...and I mean on both sides

As far as "the peoples' voices", regardless of the issue, I think, in general, they are more passionate about who is on American Idol