Why the Constitution sucks

American · 02-08-10, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Groucho

Folks, I am very aware of what the founders intended. Seriously. I am also aware that it would take a Constitutional amendment to change it. I've said so in this thread more than once.

I am giving my opinion on what I would like it to be, not what I think it is. Do you understand? Some of us can actually do that.

So please, stop trying to convince me of things I already know. I agree with you about what the original intent was. I am merely arguing why I think it should be changed. Telling me it's not what the founders intended does nothing to change my opinion.

Great, then you should stop promoting the idea that we should abandon the original intent until enough amending is done the right way. Until that time liberals can stuff their disagreement with the Constitution where the sun don't shine. I mean quite frankly it's as simple as that. Amend the the Constitution or get the socialism out of my face. It's not rocket science.

Tsunami · 02-08-10, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar

It's not the government's job to protect people from themselves. The Constitution's job is to protect the people from government.

The people are government. There can be no government without the will of the people. There is no separate entity called "government" that is controlling anyone, it is the other way around. The people control the government. The Constitution never did a great job protecting the people from government or themselves, though admittedly it is better than the core of most every other nation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar

Anyone who has to resort to sophistry to pretend the Second Amendment does not limit what government can regarding the possession of firearms is just sad.

But that's no where near as important as their desire to hinder the people's freedom based on their misinterpretation of the Constitution.

I desire to expand the people's freedom, not hinder it. But I am honest, and I cannot honestly claim that the second amendment was intended to mean what you claim it does. Anyone who questions my integrity will only make themselves look foolish, as you are doing.

Quote:

Oh, see what I mean? The courts don't mean doodly, to quote the old lady at the ferry in The Outlaw Josie Wales. The courts have ruled that black people are property, that separate but equal is constitutional policy, that separate but equal isn't sound constutional policy, etc, etc, etc.

Current legal theory represents what current legal beagles wish the Constitution said, but doesn't. The Constitution makes it plain what it says....it's written in plain english.

What was plain English in 1791 is no longer the plain English of today. Even back then the congress and the states passed different versions of the second amendment. The simple fact that there is such debate on the topic proves that the grammar is vague and confusing. I suppose it is just a coincidence that the meaning you see is the one you want to see. I am glad that there are clearer heads among the "current legal beagles".

Quote:

I have no idea how anyone reading a sentences that shall "shall not be infringed" can take it to mean "infringe all you want". Seriously, people who can do that have some deep seated emotional issues, probably related to childhood toilet training and bossy older sisters.

The sentence doesn't say that. You once again (dishonestly) left out the first part of the sentence. People who do that would rather deceive themselves than form an opinion based solely upon facts.

Quote:

Of course it does, because....the two aren't completely interlocking. Well regulated militia's are handy...and the people themselves have to have arms ready to hand when the would be tyrant tries to use the militia to curb their freedoms. Try reading the Federalist Papers some day.

I've already quoted the Federalist Papers in this thread. That is where my opinion comes from. Madison authored the second amendment not to ensure a gun for every home, but to contain the power of the federal government. I think he was being short-sighted, because I'm not sure citizen militias are still realistic. Unless bearing arms includes fighter jets, attack helicopters, and nuclear weaponry.

Hamilton was against the adoption of the Bill of Rights because he foresaw the same problems I mentioned in my original post, namely that it is easy to ignore fundamental rights that aren't specifically written amongst the few that are. The ninth amendment didn't work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar

No, some people who disagree with me are just mistaken.

Liberals are dishonest, and naturally they disagree with me, because I'm not dishonest.

You are either dishonest or delusional. I actually prefer the latter.

American · 02-09-10, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tsunami

The people are government. There can be no government without the will of the people. There is no separate entity called "government" that is controlling anyone, it is the other way around. The people control the government. The Constitution never did a great job protecting the people from government or themselves, though admittedly it is better than the core of most every other nation.

I desire to expand the people's freedom, not hinder it. But I am honest, and I cannot honestly claim that the second amendment was intended to mean what you claim it does. Anyone who questions my integrity will only make themselves look foolish, as you are doing.

What was plain English in 1791 is no longer the plain English of today. Even back then the congress and the states passed different versions of the second amendment. The simple fact that there is such debate on the topic proves that the grammar is vague and confusing. I suppose it is just a coincidence that the meaning you see is the one you want to see. I am glad that there are clearer heads among the "current legal beagles".

The sentence doesn't say that. You once again (dishonestly) left out the first part of the sentence. People who do that would rather deceive themselves than form an opinion based solely upon facts.

I've already quoted the Federalist Papers in this thread. That is where my opinion comes from. Madison authored the second amendment not to ensure a gun for every home, but to contain the power of the federal government. I think he was being short-sighted, because I'm not sure citizen militias are still realistic. Unless bearing arms includes fighter jets, attack helicopters, and nuclear weaponry.

Hamilton was against the adoption of the Bill of Rights because he foresaw the same problems I mentioned in my original post, namely that it is easy to ignore fundamental rights that aren't specifically written amongst the few that are. The ninth amendment didn't work.

You are either dishonest or delusional. I actually prefer the latter.

So you question someone else's integrity while saying no one may question yours. Check.

Groucho · 02-09-10, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by American

Great, then you should stop promoting the idea that we should abandon the original intent until enough amending is done the right way. Until that time liberals can stuff their disagreement with the Constitution where the sun don't shine. I mean quite frankly it's as simple as that. Amend the the Constitution or get the socialism out of my face. It's not rocket science.

So...

I'm not allowed to have an opinion until after the Constitution is amended?

And, just for the record, there are plenty of conservatives who also believe we should get rid of the electoral college. Seriously, do a little reading. This isn't about liberal verses conservative at all.

American · 02-09-10, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Groucho

So...

I'm not allowed to have an opinion until after the Constitution is amended?

And, just for the record, there are plenty of conservatives who also believe we should get rid of the electoral college. Seriously, do a little reading. This isn't about liberal verses conservative at all.

You don't know that a popular vote is better, you just think it is.

Groucho · 02-09-10, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by American

You don't know that a popular vote is better, you just think it is.

Um, yes. That's what an opinion is.

American · 02-09-10, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Groucho

Um, yes. That's what an opinion is.

Sorry I don't believe in amending a feature of the Constitution merely because you don't like it.

misterman · 02-09-10, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tsunami

The people are government. There can be no government without the will of the people. There is no separate entity called "government" that is controlling anyone, it is the other way around. The people control the government.

The people are the government, or the people control it - which is it?

Quote:

The simple fact that there is such debate on the topic proves that the grammar is vague and confusing.

Or that most people don't know what they're talking about.

misterman · 02-09-10, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by American

Great, then you should stop promoting the idea that we should abandon the original intent until enough amending is done the right way. Until that time liberals can stuff their disagreement with the Constitution where the sun don't shine. I mean quite frankly it's as simple as that. Amend the the Constitution or get the socialism out of my face. It's not rocket science.

Oh, get over yourself.

American · 02-09-10, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by misterman

Oh, get over yourself.

Boy that rebuttal sure turned the tide, I'm speechless.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following User Says Thank You to American For This Useful Post:
other

The Following User Says Thank You to Groucho For This Useful Post:
Tsunami