• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If a Constitutional Convention were called today...

Dittohead not! said:
Why, then, have we been arguing about it for the past couple of hundred years?
Click to expand...

Actually only for less than 100 years if you start with the very first national attempt (National Firearms Act passed in 1934) to exercise some control over gun possession. Up to that point there was no significant disagreement about the right to possess a firearm, just where you could carry it.

The argument always springs up over inappropriate use. Hence cities and towns passing ordinances about right to carry, or checking arms when visiting, etc. Tommy guns scared the crap out of law enforcement which led to the push to prevent access. It moved up from there till today we have a sizeable and vocal anti-Second Amendment faction trying anything and everything to disarm fellow citizens.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Actually only for less than 100 years if you start with the very first national attempt (National Firearms Act passed in 1934) to exercise some control over gun possession. Up to that point there was no significant disagreement about the right to possess a firearm, just where you could carry it.

The argument always springs up over inappropriate use. Hence cities and towns passing ordinances about right to carry, or checking arms when visiting, etc. Tommy guns scared the crap out of law enforcement which led to the push to prevent access. It moved up from there till today we have a sizeable and vocal anti-Second Amendment faction trying anything and everything to disarm fellow citizens.
Click to expand...

very nice.....i especially liked the part where you stated " anti-Second Amendment faction..
 
Captain Adverse said:
Actually only for less than 100 years if you start with the very first national attempt (National Firearms Act passed in 1934) to exercise some control over gun possession. Up to that point there was no significant disagreement about the right to possess a firearm, just where you could carry it.

The argument always springs up over inappropriate use. Hence cities and towns passing ordinances about right to carry, or checking arms when visiting, etc. Tommy guns scared the crap out of law enforcement which led to the push to prevent access. It moved up from there till today we have a sizeable and vocal anti-Second Amendment faction trying anything and everything to disarm fellow citizens.
Click to expand...

The right to keep and bear arms. "Bear" means to carry them. "Arms" refers to all weapons, not just to guns. If that right "shall not be infringed", then any ordinance that limits where weapons may be carried or what sorts of weapons may be kept and born is anti Second Amendment. Since no one is anxious to allow anyone and everyone the right to carry missiles or RPGs whenever and wherever they wish, the wording of the Second Amendment has been the source of some argumentation over the years, and is likely to continue to be for the foreseeable future.
 
CriticalThought said:
...what would be the biggest things people would seek to change about the Constitution?
Click to expand...




Protesting the Convention itself. No doubt the PTB would only screw it up.
 
Dittohead not! said:
The right to keep and bear arms. "Bear" means to carry them. "Arms" refers to all weapons, not just to guns. If that right "shall not be infringed", then any ordinance that limits where weapons may be carried or what sorts of weapons may be kept and born is anti Second Amendment. Since no one is anxious to allow anyone and everyone the right to carry missiles or RPGs whenever and wherever they wish, the wording of the Second Amendment has been the source of some argumentation over the years, and is likely to continue to be for the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...

the founders meant "firearms" which can be carried....you used the words "weapons", which can include bombs, cannons, and ............ carry missiles or RPGs , as you stated.

the 2nd amendment's meaning - government is restricted from creating any law which would prohibit the people from keeping and bearing [firearms]arms...be they single shot or fully automatic.
 
ernst barkmann said:
the founders meant "firearms" which can be carried....you used the words "weapons", which can include bombs, cannons, and ............ carry missiles or RPGs , as you stated.

the 2nd amendment's meaning - government is restricted from creating any law which would prohibit the people from keeping and bearing [firearms]arms...be they single shot or fully automatic.
Click to expand...

That's the modern interpretation, but not the original words. I thought the Second Amendment was supposed to be "unambiguous." If that's so, why the interpretation? Why the constant argument over the interpretation of those words?
 
Dittohead not! said:
That's the modern interpretation, but not the original words. I thought the Second Amendment was supposed to be "unambiguous." If that's so, why the interpretation? Why the constant argument over the interpretation of those words?
Click to expand...

the preamble to the bill of rights states exactly what its about......."government shall make no law"......because the clauses of the bill of rights are all restrictions on government.

government is restricted from making any law which would prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms....firearms.

The First 10 Amendments to the
Constitution as Ratified by the States

December 15, 1791
Preamble

The Congress OF THE United States
begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday
the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution
 
ernst barkmann said:
the preamble to the bill of rights states exactly what its about......."government shall make no law"......because the clauses of the bill of rights are all restrictions on government.

government is restricted from making any law which would prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms....firearms.

The First 10 Amendments to the
Constitution as Ratified by the States

December 15, 1791
Preamble

The Congress OF THE United States
begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday
the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution
Click to expand...

Correct: The Constitution lists restrictions on government.

Incorrect: The Constitution uses the word "firearms." That word is a modern interpretation of the original document.

So, how can the government then infringe the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms by stating where, what types, and by whom arms may be born? If the original words really mean what they say, are not, as you said, ambiguous, then any and all arms can be born anywhere by anyone. The right shall not be infringed.
 
ernst barkmann said:
repealing the 17th would be monumental in changing the face of american politics, and reinstating a POWER CHECK on federal power.
Click to expand...

I agree. I doubt it will happen any time soon, but it's something that would help this country a lot.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Ummm...what?

Perhaps you missed, or misunderstood this:



Otherwise, what makes you think we consistently agree or are diametrically opposed because we share "Libertarian - Left?"

What is YOUR interpretation of that label?
Click to expand...
I found your post confusing - thanks for clarifying.
 
matchlight said:
It would be simple enough to include a provision for overriding the cap for some limited period by a supermajority vote, say 3/4, of the state legislatures and of both Houses of Congress. A vote would take very little time.
Click to expand...
I don't know enough legally about Amendments or the Constitution to ascertain the accuracy of your statement, but I look at the Constitution as something permanent.

So I suppose my problem with your suggestion would be that if there's a provision for legislators to override, the provision will become a normal part of legislating.

But regardless, thanks for the reply.
 
Chomsky said:
I found your post confusing - thanks for clarifying.
Click to expand...

Sorry. I thought by putting all those obviously inane rationales for each suggested change to amendments it would show I was making fun of them.
 
Chomsky said:
I don't know enough legally about Amendments or the Constitution to ascertain the accuracy of your statement, but I look at the Constitution as something permanent.

So I suppose my problem with your suggestion would be that if there's a provision for legislators to override, the provision will become a normal part of legislating.

But regardless, thanks for the reply.
Click to expand...

Several parts of the Constitution require certain votes--including Article V itself, which requires a two-thirds vote either of both Houses of Congress or of the state legislatures, followed by a three-fourths vote to ratify by the state legislatures, to amend the Constitution. So I can't see what would prevent including a provision for an override vote in an amendment capping federal spending in case of national emergency. The trick would be to make the lifting of the cap temporary, and to make the required majorities so large that the override feature could not regularly be abused as a way to get around the cap. I would rather leave it out altogether--I only suggested it in response to a poster's complaint that a cap on federal spending would tie our hands in a national emergency.
 
Last edited:
Ancient Herald said:
impeachment is absolutely useless if there is no will to sue it, even if there is ample evidence to show that the president, whom ever he or she may be, has committed high crimes and treason.
Click to expand...

Currently the Constitution also allows for impeachment for even misdemeanor offenses. Just an FYI. :)
 
Dittohead not! said:
The right to keep and bear arms. "Bear" means to carry them. "Arms" refers to all weapons, not just to guns. If that right "shall not be infringed", then any ordinance that limits where weapons may be carried or what sorts of weapons may be kept and born is anti Second Amendment. Since no one is anxious to allow anyone and everyone the right to carry missiles or RPGs whenever and wherever they wish, the wording of the Second Amendment has been the source of some argumentation over the years, and is likely to continue to be for the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...

Grammar Nazi!!! :mrgreen:

Correct word is "Bare" arms, not "Bear" arms. :prof (sorry, couldn't resist :mrgreen: )
 
ernst barkmann said:
the founders meant "firearms" which can be carried....you used the words "weapons", which can include bombs, cannons, and ............ carry missiles or RPGs , as you stated.

the 2nd amendment's meaning - government is restricted from creating any law which would prohibit the people from keeping and bearing [firearms]arms...be they single shot or fully automatic.
Click to expand...

Partially incorrect. The Founders were not just talking about firearms. You have to remember that at the time of the Founding Fathers people were still very much using swords also. After all, muskets weren't exactly very useful in close in combat. ;)
 
Dittohead not! said:
That's the modern interpretation, but not the original words. I thought the Second Amendment was supposed to be "unambiguous." If that's so, why the interpretation? Why the constant argument over the interpretation of those words?
Click to expand...

Easy question to answer: Because we have dishonest people running our government and sheeple living in this country.
 
matchlight said:
Several parts of the Constitution require certain votes--including Article V itself, which requires a two-thirds vote either of both Houses of Congress or of the state legislatures, followed by a three-fourths vote to ratify by the state legislatures, to amend the Constitution. So I can't see what would prevent including a provision for an override vote in an amendment capping federal spending in case of national emergency. The trick would be to make the lifting of the cap temporary, and to make the required majorities so large that the override feature could not regularly be abused as a way to get around the cap. I would rather leave it out altogether--I only suggested it in response to a poster's complaint that a cap on federal spending would tie our hands in a national emergency.
Click to expand...
And let's not forget the flipside to all this would be during some emergency that affects say 70% of the country, some of the guys in the unaffected 30% decide to hold the rest hostage! Perhaps for pork. Perhaps for worse!

Right now we can see 40 reps in the House holding 535 at bay from time-to-time, threatening to shutdown the government - so we can't assume all reps & senators will always do what's right.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Incorrect: The Constitution uses the word "firearms." That word is a modern interpretation of the original document.

So, how can the government then infringe the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms by stating where, what types, and by whom arms may be born? If the original words really mean what they say, are not, as you said, ambiguous, then any and all arms can be born anywhere by anyone. The right shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

Bold: Incorrect. The Constitution does not once mention "firearms". It simply states "arms".

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.

US Constitution

They simply stated "Arms" because at the time people used more than just firearms. As I stated earlier, muskets are not very good weapons for close quarters combat so they used swords also. Also it would not include weapons like RPG's, grenades, missiles etc etc because those are not "Arms", they're heavy ordinance and explosives.
 
CriticalThought said:
...what would be the biggest things people would seek to change about the Constitution?
Click to expand...

Toss it out the window. Constitutions are nothing but the chest-pounding, swaggering brays of puffed-up politicians who consider that they know what's right for this and all future generations. I hate the fact that Canada has a constitution. My rights, previous, were well protected by British Common Law which has been proven over centuries to be able to adapt to change and circumstances. Be damned if I think it's right that the elected government should have it's hands tied by the pronouncements of a group of loudmouths from generations ago.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Correct: The Constitution lists restrictions on government.

Incorrect: The Constitution uses the word "firearms." That word is a modern interpretation of the original document.

So, how can the government then infringe the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms by stating where, what types, and by whom arms may be born? If the original words really mean what they say, are not, as you said, ambiguous, then any and all arms can be born anywhere by anyone. The right shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

You are raising questions that have already been settled. In D.C. v. Heller seven years ago, the Court said this:

The 18th-century meaning [of "arms"] is no different from the meaning today . . . .

The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity . . . .

Some have made the argument . . . that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way . . . the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
.....................
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited . . . [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms . . . the sorts of weapons protected were those in common use at the time. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons" . . . .
 
Chomsky said:
Right now we can see 40 reps in the House holding 535 at bay from time-to-time, threatening to shutdown the government - so we can't assume all reps & senators will always do what's right.
Click to expand...

Our democratic republic was purposely designed to generate conflict, with each part constantly checking and vying against the others. The federal government is supposed to be balky and full of contention. Efficiency is for dictatorships, where debate and delay and blockages are eliminated. And "what's right" for our representatives in Congress to do in a particular circumstance is a matter for debate. Many people may think it's best to take NO action, and want their representatives to block any attempts to act.

When members of the House are "threatening to shut down the government," they are doing exactly what the Constitution designs by refusing to fund measures their constituents oppose. Under Article I, sec. 7, cl. 1, "all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives." That provision was included specifically to leave the people with a powerful brake on the federal government in the form of control of the purse, with that control exercised through the legislative body most responsive to their wishes.

The very fact that this inaction has come to be portrayed negatively--"shutting down the government"--shows just how far overgrown the central government has become. We are supposed to believe we could hardly survive, if it were ever kept from doing even more all the time, and growing even larger.
 
Grand Mal said:
Toss it out the window. Constitutions are nothing but the chest-pounding, swaggering brays of puffed-up politicians who consider that they know what's right for this and all future generations. I hate the fact that Canada has a constitution. My rights, previous, were well protected by British Common Law which has been proven over centuries to be able to adapt to change and circumstances. Be damned if I think it's right that the elected government should have it's hands tied by the pronouncements of a group of loudmouths from generations ago.
Click to expand...

I agree, you Canadians should get rid of your constitution. I also think that unicorns should sing to you very morning and butterflies should fly around your arse hole when you fart. Us Americans will keep ours and keep those damn unicorns off my property. They **** all over the grass.
 
NonoBadDog said:
I agree, you Canadians should get rid of your constitution. I also think that unicorns should sing to you very morning and butterflies should fly around your arse hole when you fart. Us Americans will keep ours and keep those damn unicorns off my property. They **** all over the grass.
Click to expand...

Funny guy. If your constitution keeps unicorns off your lawn it's because fairys are protecting your garden.
If you hadn't already sanctified Thomas Jefferson you might be able to question whether a handful of 18th century liberals were so God-given wise that they knew what would be best for you today. Not being able to question what you've been taught since you could be taught has made you unable to even entertain the question- Is a constitution necessary, or is it baggage that could be left behind?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom