Shall we give up on the Constitution ?????

[mrsleeve]

That fact you think we have a 2 party system is humorous to me, we have a 1 party system, with 2 pandering branches

I would assume because it is easier for us to control or influence as the powers of the chambers are not as strong or independent of each other. Also easier to switch p.m. if need be.

Your observation is a great example of how power corrupts. Even our gov has a hard time giving up the very power and freedom we enjoy.

Corvallis read this again, the answer to your question could not have been laid out more simply.

[mar1t1me]

The framers of our current Constitution went to great lengths to exclude any mention of God, especially a Christian God, from their opus, and in spite of it, look at how thoroughly the regressive forces of religion have inserted themselves into any discussion of (what should be secular) public policy.

I shudder to think of how a new constitution would look given the equally regressive ideologies the Right clings to these days. One need only glance at the Texas GOP platform, which would no doubt curdle the blood of any statesman of Franklin or Jefferson's ilk, to see that any new constitution crafted at the hands of these buffoons would be a huge step backwards for America.

[slaterd]

Well, according to your messiah, Thomas Jefferson, we should be abolishing the constitution every 19 years (each generation) and creating a completely new one that is more relevant to the current generation. I tend to agree with Jefferson on this. Do you?

I've been saying this for years.
2nd Amendment - A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

This was applied when militias were "necessary" to insure the security of their state. It is also stating that within a militia the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The right to just have a gun because you want one is not entitled. How many militias are there now? This was also applied when muskets were a big thing, not m4's and ak47's and when the nation as a whole was in chaos because of the transitions it was going through.
I believe in keeping your firearms, however I do not believe in the ignorance of a lot of American's thinking they are entitled to be able to keep military grade weapons. Self entitlement in America is on a rampage. :loco::loco:

Compared to now

[mrsleeve]

^

See the Dick Act of 1902 for the answer to your questions.


Little hint your part of the Militia right now and dont even know it apparently

[Dozyproductions]

I've been saying this for years.
2nd Amendment - A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

This was applied when militias were "necessary" to insure the security of their state. It is also stating that within a militia the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The right to just have a gun because you want one is not entitled. How many militias are there now? This was also applied when muskets were a big thing, not m4's and ak47's and when the nation as a whole was in chaos because of the transitions it was going through.
I believe in keeping your firearms, however I do not believe in the ignorance of a lot of American's thinking they are entitled to be able to keep military grade weapons. Self entitlement in America is on a rampage. :loco::loco:
[ATTACH]64712[/ATTACH]
Compared to now
[ATTACH]64713[/ATTACH]

Law is law and what is in our constitution as our rights stands until it becomes null and void and off the official papers. The necessary argument is weak at best and unfortunately you become the very ignorant that you are sick of in your display of ill gotten knowledge.

[slaterd]

I come to the debating section to laugh at the people trying to sound intelligent during an argument but throughout your other posts you sound like an uneducated hill jack. Trying to sound smart through a debate doesn't make your argument any stronger. It doesn't have to be "null and void and off the papers" to be taken in the sense that it was made for. Americans have translated it into a literal sense that they are entitled to any fire arms whenever they wish regardless of the reasons why. Society, civilians, and government have all changed by leaps and bounds from 1776 to today. Weaponry above all Since weaponry has improved drastically it should be regulated on a higher restriction level. However, since we as Americans love to misinterpret things and see them in our favor, people believe they have the right to a fuckin AK47 assault rifle. Get real folks.

[Dozyproductions]

You're the only one cursing in this thread but go ahead and tell me that Im a 'hill jack'. By your own admittance maybe it would be better for you to stay out of the debate forum if you can't debate and name calling being your only means of argument.

[mrsleeve]

I come to the debating section to laugh at the people trying to sound intelligent during an argument but throughout your other posts you sound like an uneducated hill jack. Trying to sound smart through a debate doesn't make your argument any stronger. It doesn't have to be "null and void and off the papers" to be taken in the sense that it was made for. Americans have translated it into a literal sense that they are entitled to any fire arms whenever they wish regardless of the reasons why. Society, civilians, and government have all changed by leaps and bounds from 1776 to today. Weaponry above all Since weaponry has improved drastically it should be regulated on a higher restriction level. However, since we as Americans love to misinterpret things and see them in our favor, people believe they have the right to a fuckin AK47 assault rifle. Get real folks.

Again, Those of you that take the Living document and argument of modern interpretation is dead wrong.

The Constitution is a document that was laid out to tell the govt What IT CANT DO TO ITS PEOPLE, not what it can. The living document argument your mind set cling to to try and gain some toe hold of credibility is a false interpretation of the term and nothing close to reality. Living document refers to amendment process and that things can be added to the document to change with the times.

Ok I will play your game. To say the founders had no idea that technology would get better and change is fucking stupid. You agree you have right to free speech right and freedom of the press right any time anywhere you please right??? Ok well to parallel your argument that weapons technology has improved, well so has the technology of the media and our ability to have our free speech heard. So if we are going to INFRINGE on arms to say 1900 levels of technology, then freedom of the press should be limited to news papers printed on 1900 era printing presses, none of this modern 100,000 copies an hour presses. Books shall be limited to the same, there will be no free speech or free press on the Radio, the television, or the internet.

After all the pen is mightier than the sword, and with all this new modern tech that allows my thoughts and yours to be seen by millions of people all over the country or the world in a instant our pen is much more powerful than the pens of 1900 right????

How about the 4th and 5th amendments. Should we limit what what the cops can use to search your home to 1900 levels of technology?? Since we now have high powered optical cameras that can read your book book though the window from 10 miles away flying at 15000 feet, and Infrared tech that can see what your doing in your home though your walls, just by driving by or flying over it, complete with high sensitivity directional focused mics that can hear what you are doing or saying form great distances as well. Not to mention can pick of the vibration of a wall to make out audio, This is would not considered to be Unlawful search and seizure and a Violation of your 4th amendment rights because the tech has allowed this was not available in 1900.


I can continue with the parallels if you want. You would scream bloody murder that the rights you care about were regulated and walked all over in such ways. If we are to limit one RIGHT to a particular area of time then all rights should be treated the same way, after all they are all rights.


The 2ed amendment is not about ducks and dear, its about human nature, and the inherent nature of all govt past and present. The bill of rights has been trampled on for nearly 200 years, and its been getting worse and accelerating fast in recent years. This is ALL OF OUR FAULTS. We have all become complacent and allowed this to happen, from our generations all the way back to those that have come and gone. We have all placed our faith that our representatives would do what is just and right on our behalf. We have done so at our own peril. We have be come fat and happy, and overly concerned with our own problems and like many other things in our society we all have adopted a ehhhh someone else will take care of that for me attitude.

A line in the sand must be drawn, and that line must be drawn HERE because without any ability to check the power of an over reaching govt, the Constitution becomes nothing more than just a piece of paper full of noble ideas.............................................

[slaterd]

You're the only one cursing in this thread but go ahead and tell me that Im a 'hill jack'. By your own admittance maybe it would be better for you to stay out of the debate forum if you can't debate and name calling being your only means of argument.

Very well I'll leave you guys to it. I gave my opinion on the matter and how I feel about the constitution that was written over 200 years cannot apply with today. Also that those who take it in the wrong context or believe that it is able to keep up with modern society 100% is, in my opinion, wrong. To an extent it can, I'll admit that. However, a lot of things have changed and a lot more ground needs to be covered with what actual rights should be in the constitution. With my opinion, you came at me with the first insult. I'm not the person who likes to continue arguing in a loop with someone that I cannot see face to face. What MRSLEEVE said previously I agree with. It is our faults and things need to change.
Continue on with the discussion

[mrsleeve]

Your right things need to change but not in the way you are wanting them too. Because if we go that way the issues that plague our society that you wrongly blame the firearms for will only get worse.

Oh by the way if you had been paying attention to many of my other posts on this subject as of late, you would know I cant own a AK47 or an assault weapon with out a huge pile of paper work, paying a large tax, and enema from the FBI and ATF, interviews, and a 4-6 month wait in the best of times. I can however own a sporting rifle that LOOKS like a AK47 or other various Assault Rifles with the normal process that govern any other civilian firearm variant. Those Sporting rifles are NOT ASSAULT RIFLES, Assault Weapons are all but BANNED in the US as it is and have been since 1934

[Dozyproductions]

....and stay out.

[z31maniac]

I wish we could get over the term "Assault Weapon"...........I mean............isn't that a bit redundant?

[mrsleeve]

Yes it is. But its also been purposefully misrepresented by the Politicos and the media for the last 20 years. Its been repeatedly bashed into everyone head though the media outlets so that most people out side of the firearms hobby and industry and even a few casual shooters that shoot grandpas old rifle 2 Saturdays a year dont know any better will not know the difference. Its a scary term and targeted efficient marketing to get more people on board with this anti firearm agenda.

Hell 10 years ago Eric Holder said all of us gun owners should hold our head in shame and cower when in public like smokers. And that there should be an anti gun media blitz like there was in the 80's and 90's with tobacco products to change how the public views Firearms and those that own them. This thread is a good example that such efforts have been working.

[naplesE30]

When the govt takes the guns is when many of you will wish you were still allowed to have them. So many on here, and in general are very short sighted. You dont need a firearm, until you need one. I dont need an ak47 until some guy comes to my door with an ak47. That is the point of the 2nd amend.

[mar1t1me]

When the govt takes the guns is when many of you will wish you were still allowed to have them. So many on here, and in general are very short sighted. You dont need a firearm, until you need one. I dont need an ak47 until some guy comes to my door with an ak47. That is the point of the 2nd amend.

Doesn't work that way in the real world. Had he survived, you could ask Keith Ratliff how well being surrounded by guns prevented his death. But it didn't. If someone truly wants you dead, and you can't afford 24/7 protection, an armored car to drive around in, etc, you are dead meat. Are you planning on wearing that AK47 on your person at all times while inside your home? True home invaders-the ones that willfully enter homes known to be occupied at the time they attack-don't knock, and someone who's good at sniping will never offer you a target. The Georgia mom who successfully defended herself and children recently had the luxury of dealing with an intruder armed only with a crowbar. He was polite-he even rang the doorbell! He thought the house was unoccupied, because she didn't answer the door. Hell, a barking dog would have probably sent the guy to another target. But had he been armed with a gun, she would likely have at least been wounded, because her gun was not on her person-she knew he was coming and had time to go and fetch it.

And since you are so concerned about something that will, in all likelihood never happen, I assume your home has a piranha/alligator filled moat, you have purchased meteor/space trash insurance, and do your errand running in a tank. ;)

Common sense precautions such as not buying/dealing drugs, not openly displaying signs of wealth, like a huge home entertainment system visible from the street, avoid leaving cardboard boxes at the curb that inform all passersby of the neato stuff you just bought, and the like make you a less desirable target. I really don't want to shoot someone in my house. I don't want that memory. I'd rather they move on to more alluring targets.

I'm also not worried about the government showing up and "taking mah guns". At the same time, even Reagan knew high-capacity magazines and assault weapons in the hands of the public was not a good thing.