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.

Who gives a feth, what makes your constitution so special that it doesn't require any fixes? Imagine if there was no restrictions in place for driving a car no designated driving areas, no age limits, no test to prove you worthy enough to drive, etc imagine how gakky and dangerous that would

be. And clearly a lot of Americans don't give a feth about the constitution as there's plenty of Americans who weren't complaining about the current gun restrictions till the government suggested add a few extra changes.

Cheese...

take a breather

A few times when it was needed. But its very hard to do and the occasion better be VERY important.

This is not such a situation.

 Grey Templar wrote:
If we could just change constitutions willy nilly whats the point of having one?

The point of having an ironclad document is so we have a final authority to appeal to, because otherwise laws would be pointless.

Yes we can change it, and our founders made it so it would be damn hard to do.


You clearly don't appreciate the consequences of not having your constitution be an (almost) immovable object of law.

And what makes our constitution so special? Its our Constitution, not anyone elses constitution. You're not from here, you couldn't understand.

./facepalm....

 Grey Templar wrote:
A few times when it was needed. But its very hard to do and the occasion better be VERY important.

This is not such a situation.

Lots of people thought that many of the changes were not important and not needed at the time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Quick thought:

Is anybody still talking about the protest, or are we simply at the same point that we always end up in every gun thread?

 d-usa wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
A few times when it was needed. But its very hard to do and the occasion better be VERY important.

This is not such a situation.

Lots of people thought that many of the changes were not important and not needed at the time.

Including white slave owners, building america off of the "necessary evil" of the moral quandary and seemingly solid and monolithic document that is the constitution.


And I was... but my post got deleted lol

I like how you are lumping anyone who defends the constitution in with racists and slave owners.

You have just really cracked me the Heck up D-USA

 Grey Templar wrote:
I like how you are lumping anyone who defends the constitution in with racists and slave owners.

Yeah... all 3/5's of it.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I like how you are lumping anyone who defends the constitution in with racists and slave owners.

I thought he was saying that the constitution isn't perfect and that sometimes it needs to be updated cause there are parts that are not working in modern society, I mean Canada updated its constitution in 1982 which introduced plenty of good ideas to our constitution, what makes yours so

sacred that it doesn't need to be touched?

The Constitution is a living document and has been amended many times to improve it, usually to guarantee more freedoms. One or twice (prohibition) we've screwed up and fixed it later.

The second amendment is an amendment too, bear in mind.

I know that wasn't directed at me, but I'm not equating gun owners to racists.

But many of the changes in the constitution faced a very vocal and sizable opposition at the time. The first ten had people fighting against them very strongly. Some of the other big ones were:

13th: slavery
14th: equal protection
15th: equal suffrage by race
16th: income tax
17th: senators by popular vote
18th: prohibition
19th: women's suffrage
21th: repealing prohibition
24th: poll taxes

Plenty of people didn't think any of these were needed and fought against them at the time.

And I am really not saying that to compare anybody to racists.

There's the issue...2nd Amendment and the word "Ban"....

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I like how you are lumping anyone who defends the constitution in with racists and slave owners.

I thought he was saying that the constitution isn't perfect and that sometimes it needs to be updated cause there are parts that are not working in modern society, I mean Canada updated its constitution in 1982 which introduced plenty of good ideas to our constitution, what makes yours so

sacred that it doesn't need to be touched?

We need a good reason to amend it. There are no good reasons put forth that outweigh the reason the second amendment exists. Nothing even close.

I'm quite happy with the Constitution as it stands currently, as are most people living here(if we weren't, we'd have a Convention)

And I wasn't replying to d-usa.

And legally, there is absolutely nothing stopping anybody from simply making the 28th amendment say "this repeals the 2nd", which is how some people are acting. But nobody is proposing that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I knew you weren't replying to me Grey, just wanted to clarify myself.

 d-usa wrote:
And legally, there is absolutely nothing stopping anybody from simply making the 28th amendment say "this repeals the 2nd", which is how some people are acting. But nobody is proposing that.

Yeah, that's not the issue. Its people proposing Unconstitutional laws and restrictions that violate the second amendment that is the problem.

There's also the whole thing about our founding fathers (Jefferson) expecting that the US would revolt against its own government every 20 years to restore the egalitarian america that was his personal vision of American Utopia. Having a regulated citizen's militia complete with their right to bear arms was central to this idea. The 2nd amendment is as archaic and counterproductive as actually having an armed revolt against the US government. The civil war was probably the best example of Jefferson's idea of a citizen's revolt, and that was really a fight between state and federal rights, not even our own. The federal government won that fight, and even if some people believe that they're still fighting to keep what rights they feel like they're losing, they're fighting for the wrong ones.

And now we're off about the American Civil War.

Well I'm just saying, the 2nd amendment was put in place for revolts like the Civil War to happen. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), the wrong people used it.

 Jihadin wrote:
There's the issue...2nd Amendment and the word "Ban"....

Good thing no one meaningful wants to ban all guns.

 d-usa wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
A few times when it was needed. But its very hard to do and the occasion better be VERY important.

This is not such a situation.

Lots of people thought that many of the changes were not important and not needed at the time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Quick thought:

Is anybody still talking about the protest, or are we simply at the same point that we always end up in every gun thread?

If some one brings up religion and guns in same statement then yes.

 DemetriDominov wrote:
There's also the whole thing about our founding fathers (Jefferson) expecting that the US would revolt against its own government every 20 years to restore the egalitarian america that was his personal vision of American Utopia. Having a regulated citizen's militia complete with their right to bear arms was central to this idea. The 2nd amendment is as archaic and counterproductive as actually having an armed revolt against the US government. The civil war was probably the best example of Jefferson's idea of a citizen's revolt, and that was really a fight between state and federal rights, not even our own. The federal government won that fight, and even if some people believe that they're still fighting to keep what rights they feel like they're losing, they're fighting for the wrong ones.

Actually, I believe someone else tried this argument earlier. The vast majority of the founders did not believe the "militia" to be anything more than the people at large. They did not voice the opinion that it should be under state control.

But if you want to repeal the Second Amendment, you're more than welcome to try. It's a pretty arduous process, though, especially when, in the wake of Newtown, more people than ever before in this country polled in support of it.

Better luck in pulling off Immagration Reform then repealing 2nd Amendment. Colorado politicians are looking at a possible recall on them.....

Several politicians here in Colorado have active recall petitions the gun control legislation no one likes,a perceived flubbing of MJ laws that the liberals all like, some VERY stupid comments by democratic legislatures during the gun debates that pissed everyone off no matter what "side" you're on, etc = an exciting midterm election.

God, some of you pro-gun guys are exasperating.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The very fact their victim is armed is a major deterrent for mos criminals.

Clearly that is untrue as you have much more gun-related criminal offenses than other similar countries.

Which only makes a difference if you ONLY look at gun crime. I suggest looking at overall violent crime if you want more accurate comparison.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Norn King wrote:
God, some of you pro-gun guys are exasperating.

As are some of you anti-gun types.

I just love watching the news stories regarding gun-laws on the news (in Australia), mainly for the anchors covering the stories basically making comedy of how hard you guys fight for your "rights".

Their groans of exasperation are hilarious.

 Norn King wrote:
I just love watching the news stories regarding gun-laws on the news (in Australia), mainly for the anchors covering the stories basically making comedy of how hard you guys fight for your "rights".

Their groans of exasperation are hilarious.

Can't be half as hilarious as the groans of exasperation among the anti-gun crowd when their legislation doesn't pass.

Pro-gun reaction when anti-gun legislation doesn't pass(as seen by Australians): yehaw! ratatatatata!

 Norn King wrote:
Pro-gun reaction when anti-gun legislation doesn't pass(as seen by Australians): yehaw! ratatatatata!

Oddly enough, I suspect that scorn works both ways.

We really are the prettiest girl at the ball, though, if domestic policy disputes are making headlines in Australia.

 Valion wrote:

 Norn King wrote:
Pro-gun reaction when anti-gun legislation doesn't pass(as seen by Australians): yehaw! ratatatatata!

Oddly enough, I suspect that scorn works both ways.

We really are the prettiest girl at the ball, though, if domestic policy disputes are making headlines in Australia.

US policy has a habit of saturating the media of other countries. It would be a mistake to believe however that they care about it.

Australia on the other hand, had its guns banned, by its own conservative party and has yet to suffer another mass shooting. An interesting fact that most American's would be better off knowing if our own media covered world news more objectively....