Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

That's not a very Christian point of view.

The Christian would say that threatening others is inherently wrong, but there are limited circumstances in which it can be permitted (e.g. the doctrine of Just War.)

Maybe we shouldn't treat a 227 year old document that was drafted in a different era of weaponry as if it were a religious document. Maybe we should adapt it to fit the current state of the world and the weaponry we use. I think the founding fathers would be freaking out if they saw we were using the same document they drafted at the birth of our nation to attempt to govern in a world that is drastically different.

I dunno, just spitballing ideas here.

 Frazzled wrote:
Alternatively if we kept his family out, 50 people would be alive this morning.

This is a ridiculous statement.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Maybe we shouldn't treat a 227 year old document that was drafted in a different era of weaponry as if it were a religious document. Maybe we should adapt it to fit the current state of the world and the weaponry we use. I think the founding fathers would be freaking out if they saw we were using the same document they drafted at the birth of our nation to attempt to govern in a world that is drastically different.

I dunno, just spitballing ideas here.

Or ya know, dont change it otherwise ALL of them are subject to change.

including the ones everyone likes and needs.

edit: (prestor jon) thats true :/ good luck getting everyone to agree though.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Maybe we shouldn't treat a 227 year old document that was drafted in a different era of weaponry as if it were a religious document. Maybe we should adapt it to fit the current state of the world and the weaponry we use. I think the founding fathers would be freaking out if they saw we were using the same document they drafted at the birth of our nation to attempt to govern in a world that is drastically different.

I dunno, just spitballing ideas here.

There is no obstacle standing in the way of amending the constitution and altering the 2nd Amendment other than the will of the people to do so. If enough people want it to change there is a mechanism in place to do so and it works just fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Maybe we shouldn't treat a 227 year old document that was drafted in a different era of weaponry as if it were a religious document. Maybe we should adapt it to fit the current state of the world and the weaponry we use. I think the founding fathers would be freaking out if they saw we were using the same document they drafted at the birth of our nation to attempt to govern in a world that is drastically different.

I dunno, just spitballing ideas here.

Or ya know, dont change it otherwise ALL of them are subject to change.

including the ones everyone likes and needs.

They're all already subject to change via the amendment process.

They are subject to change at any point anyways....

Voting rights for folks
Prohibition and its repeal
Free slaves

Just a few times that the Constitution has been amended

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Maybe we shouldn't treat a 227 year old document that was drafted in a different era of weaponry as if it were a religious document. Maybe we should adapt it to fit the current state of the world and the weaponry we use. I think the founding fathers would be freaking out if they saw we were using the same document they drafted at the birth of our nation to attempt to govern in a world that is drastically different.

I dunno, just spitballing ideas here.

You are correct.

But people uphold it to such a degree that it is quite insulting to the living.

Every government has updated their founding documents if they don't they turn into carthage or rome.....

And we know how well they ended.

It needs to be updated and it is something we need to do, it is a matter of time we scrubbed away the racisim and bigotry that the original document said. Instead of treating it as a religious document it helped found our nation true.

But it is a document that should be changed. By the people for the people. Not because of self poised idealism but because we have to evolve as a country, if we remain stagant in our beliefs then what next? Do we continue to objectively believe ourselves the greatest nation without thinking. We should evolve and become better?

There will come a time when the human mind would of evolved into something greater would we really have a document hold us back from doing that if it was for the betterment of all mankind?

Yes, please have a Constitutional convention. That will be very interesting. I wonder how many states may decide to skip it and just secede.

 Xenomancers wrote:

The point I was making was that the bible does not contain passages that promise virgins in paradise for martyrdom and is therefore insufficient as a comparison. The bible might be homophobic but it is generally not commanding holywar or promising virgins for your self sacrifice. Both religions are morally reprehensible but it should be clear to anyone which is more likely to induce suicide killings.

The Qur'an forbids suicide, actually (Sura 4, ayah 29). As do several Hadith (2:23:446, 7:71:670). And neither religion is morally reprehensible, the goal of both (and therefore the focus of most Quranic or Biblical teachings) is for its followers to lead a good and just life with compassion for others. In fact Christianity provides most of the moral and legal groundwork upon which our Western civilisation is based. How much do you even know about Islam or Christianity?

 TheMeanDM wrote:
They are subject to change at any point anyways....

Voting rights for folks
Prohibition and its repeal
Free slaves

Just a few times that the Constitution has been amended

I think we need a few more changes.

Such as the right to fair treatment.

Or the bill of economic rights. Which was proposed by FDR

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights

The Second Bill of Rights is a list of rights that was proposed by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt during his State of the Union Address on January 11, 1944.[1] In his address Roosevelt suggested that the nation had come to recognize, and should now implement, a second "bill of rights". Roosevelt's argument was that the "political rights" guaranteed by the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights had "proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness." Roosevelt's remedy was to declare an "economic bill of rights" which would guarantee eight specific rights:

Employment (right to work)
Food, clothing and leisure, via enough income to support them
Farmers' rights to a fair income
Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies
Housing
Medical care
Social security
Education

Roosevelt stated that having these rights would guarantee American security, and that the United States' place in the world depended upon how far these and similar rights had been carried into practice.

But this is SEVERELY offtopic.

We should be talking about the current events, and not whatever we are currently talking about...

IE

The events currently going in Orlando.

There have been two tragedies there.

The killing of a professional singer Christina Grimme

And the deaths of 49 people by three gunmen.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Maybe we shouldn't treat a 227 year old document that was drafted in a different era of weaponry as if it were a religious document. Maybe we should adapt it to fit the current state of the world and the weaponry we use. I think the founding fathers would be freaking out if they saw we were using the same document they drafted at the birth of our nation to attempt to govern in a world that is drastically different.

I dunno, just spitballing ideas here.

You are correct.

But people uphold it to such a degree that it is quite insulting to the living.

Every government has updated their founding documents if they don't they turn into carthage or rome.....

And we know how well they ended.

It needs to be updated and it is something we need to do, it is a matter of time we scrubbed away the racisim and bigotry that the original document said. Instead of treating it as a religious document it helped found our nation true.

But it is a document that should be changed. By the people for the people. Not because of self poised idealism but because we have to evolve as a country, if we remain stagant in our beliefs then what next? Do we continue to objectively believe ourselves the greatest nation without thinking. We should evolve and become better?

There will come a time when the human mind would of evolved into something greater would we really have a document hold us back from doing that if it was for the betterment of all mankind?

Dude there is already a process in place within the constitution itself that lets the citizens of the country, through their representative government, make changes to the constitution. It works fine and it's been used 27 different times already. If enough of the citizenry want it changed then it will be changed. If they don't it stays the same.

 Frazzled wrote:
Yes, please have a Constitutional convention. That will be very interesting. I wonder how many states may decide to skip it and just secede.

If that is their prerogative. Then so be it. If they don't want better living for all people and to have the government evolve and become something better then so be it.

Dude there is already a process in place within the constitution itself that lets the citizens of the country, through their representative government, make changes to the constitution. It works fine and it's been used 27 different times already. If enough of the citizenry want it changed then it will be changed. If they don't it stays the same.

I am well aware, but people don't exercise that right because many don't know it exists. If a system does not accurately represents the views of its constitutes then the system has failed. Not saying it has. But that is something we must be wary of going forward.

And many are unaware of it. I do hope one day we will see people push for something better for this country other than threatening to secede whenever a piece of paper is changed because it is the right thing to do.

Why do you think it would evolve to something better? With today's authoritarian PC/do it for th children/we've got to have security culture, I could see major portions of the Bill of Rights, and separation of powers disappearing.

 Frazzled wrote:
Why do you think it would evolve to something better? With today's authoritarian PC/do it for th children/we've got to have security culture, I could see major portions of the Bill of Rights, and separation of powers disappearing.

Hmm?

Because the rational people out there know that PC culture is just belligerent people who are just going through a phase. PC culture is slowly dying because it isn't cool or seen as acceptable to step on others rights to free speech.

If we give them the reigns maybe.

But I don't think that will happen. I have more respect for rationality than I do emotionally driven arguments.

Yes, the same rationality that has brought us Hillary and Trump.

 Frazzled wrote:
Yes, please have a Constitutional convention. That will be very interesting. I wonder how many states may decide to skip it and just secede.

Well, we know Texas is planning on it....

 Frazzled wrote:
Yes, the same rationality that has brought us Hillary and Drumpf.

Thats not rationallity

Rationality is the combination of the heart and the mind.

Neither those are rational in my opinion.

Also this app I have changed your Trump to Drumpf.

Brilliant.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Yes, please have a Constitutional convention. That will be very interesting. I wonder how many states may decide to skip it and just secede.

Well, we know Texas is planning on it....

You can keep the debt. We'll keep the TexMex. Mmm Mexico you sure got a purty mouth...
Greater Texas, From the Red River to Panama City! Vive! Texas! lalalalalalal

If we're that done with the topic I can lock this up...

Maybe we should adapt it to fit the current state of the world and the weaponry we use.

Let's go back to 1791 a moment
"This is a gun."
"What's it do?"
"Well if it hits you in the arm or leg, you'll generally lose the limb and probably also die. If it hits you in the torso, you almost certainly die."

And all this in an era where multibarrel, revolving, and repeating weapons were (to various extents) in existence, and things like body armor and medical response were...let's be generous and say "Basic" for now.

Yea I'm totally sure that these guys just flat out had no concept of what they were putting to paper.

 d-usa wrote:
If you continue to ignore the rest of a quoted post just so you can make random points, you light as well stop responding to me and waste the time of everyone that has to read your pointless replies.

No. Claiming that no one would go to a bar except to drink is a hilariously dumb claim. I mean, gak, I've gone to bars and not touched alcohol plenty of times; sometimes people are the designated driver. If you really want to double down with it, fine. Trying to weasel out of having said it isn't going to work, though.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asherian Command wrote:

I am well aware, but people don't exercise that right because many don't know it exists. If a system does not accurately represents the views of its constitutes then the system has failed. Not saying it has. But that is something we must be wary of going forward.

And many are unaware of it. I do hope one day we will see people push for something better for this country other than threatening to secede whenever a piece of paper is changed because it is the right thing to do.

Individual citizens don't need to be 'aware of it,' because it's not like they just stand on their desks at work one day and declare a constitutional convention.

Nobody in the political realm has made a move to alter or remove the Second because it has broad support among the American public, as shown in poll after poll after poll. There is nowhere near a majority in favor of getting rid of it.

 SOFDC wrote:

Maybe we should adapt it to fit the current state of the world and the weaponry we use.

Yea I'm totally sure that these guys just flat out had no concept of what they were putting to paper.

Well first off, that is not what I said. Nor is it implied by the snippet you quoted. What I said is that weaponry has changed since 1791 to a great extent, if your arguing against that, well then I really don't have much to say to you because that is an absurd argument.

To be honest I am not even sure why you are bringing up medical treatment for a gunshot wound. A shot to the head or a vital area will still kill you the same as it would in 1791, but now you can fire way faster with way more bullets and effectively increase your odds of hitting one of these vital areas. Remember, guns changed, not human anatomy!

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 SOFDC wrote:

Maybe we should adapt it to fit the current state of the world and the weaponry we use.

Yea I'm totally sure that these guys just flat out had no concept of what they were putting to paper.

Well first off, that is not what I said. Nor is it implied by the snippet you quoted. What I said is that weaponry has changed since 1791 to a great extent, if your arguing against that, well then I really don't have much to say to you because that is an absurd argument.

To be honest I am not even sure why you are bringing up medical treatment for a gunshot wound. A shot to the head or a vital area will still kill you the same as it would in 1791, but now you can fire way faster with way more bullets and effectively increase your odds of hitting one of these vital areas. Remember, guns changed, not human anatomy!

So free press should only be related to the following?

Or...???

Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If you continue to ignore the rest of a quoted post just so you can make random points, you light as well stop responding to me and waste the time of everyone that has to read your pointless replies.

No. Claiming that no one would go to a bar except to drink is a hilariously dumb claim. I mean, gak, I've gone to bars and not touched alcohol plenty of times; sometimes people are the designated driver. If you really want to double down with it, fine. Trying to weasel out of having said it isn't going to work, though.

So it's not that you are dishonest in your selective quoting to score a point in an Internet argument, it's just that you can't read and comprehend a post?

Either case, better to just put me on ignore than to waste our time. This is twice now in two different threads that you managed to completely miss or ignore the content of posts to try to score a point, and twice that it made you look foolish.

 whembly wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 SOFDC wrote:

Maybe we should adapt it to fit the current state of the world and the weaponry we use.

Yea I'm totally sure that these guys just flat out had no concept of what they were putting to paper.

Well first off, that is not what I said. Nor is it implied by the snippet you quoted. What I said is that weaponry has changed since 1791 to a great extent, if your arguing against that, well then I really don't have much to say to you because that is an absurd argument.

To be honest I am not even sure why you are bringing up medical treatment for a gunshot wound. A shot to the head or a vital area will still kill you the same as it would in 1791, but now you can fire way faster with way more bullets and effectively increase your odds of hitting one of these vital areas. Remember, guns changed, not human anatomy!

So free press should only be related to the following?

Spoiler:

Or...???

Spoiler:

What are you even trying to argue here?

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Maybe we shouldn't treat a 227 year old document that was drafted in a different era of weaponry as if it were a religious document. Maybe we should adapt it to fit the current state of the world and the weaponry we use. I think the founding fathers would be freaking out if they saw we were using the same document they drafted at the birth of our nation to attempt to govern in a world that is drastically different.

I dunno, just spitballing ideas here.

That "277 year old document" is the reason why many of us able to have this discussion without getting arrested for "hate speech"


The Bill of Rights are enshrined because they are not granted by majoritarianism, those in power, or the Constitution itself. In other words, the Bill of Rights are necessary to secure the inalienable rights we are bestowed upon by virtue of birth: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

You can Amend the Constitution to remove one or more of the Bill of Rights, but it won't erase the fact that the people still possess those rights. In fact, repealing of any of the Bill of Rights stamps a mark of illegitimacy on the government.

This has gone off the rails, well done.