Young country
1 2018-05-21 by selaromcire
The US is relatively young compared to other countries, who have revamped their country’s constitution, why do people get so distraught at the thought of reviewing our own constitution to be more modern and accommodating to the times in which we live?
I didnt know where else to post this.
28 comments
1 tobyflenderson13 2018-05-21
People generally dislike any kind of change. Whether its a bad or good thing, just how people tend to be.
1 selaromcire 2018-05-21
not sure what the downvote was for. you arent wrong.
1 gematrix 2018-05-21
Cause young USA goes around, instead, nuking, bombing old countries til they restructure their constitutions to suit its own zealous narcotic and oil needs.
1 Grimmster71 2018-05-21
When people talk of modernizing the constitution they generally want to take away enshrined rights and add entitlements. So it’s all depending on which side you are on. For me it’s hard to imagine many current politicians who would use this as an opportunity to increase our freedoms while respecting the intent of the original document and its understanding of human nature
1 Putin_loves_cats 2018-05-21
I'm sitting here trying to figure out, why people think Contracts that they've never signed, even applies to them...
People really need to look into that, imo ;)
1 saneromeo 2018-05-21
The Constitution is based on God given rights not government given rights. That is what is different about the US and other countries.
1 3j82tj 2018-05-21
But the government can take away anything it wants at anytime even though it was given to us by God.
1 saneromeo 2018-05-21
But they can't, that's the point. It gives us the legal authority to rise up if they try to take our rights. The only way we lose them is if we allow it.
1 PinkoPrepper 2018-05-21
The rights are derived from the people, not God or any government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution
1 saneromeo 2018-05-21
The declaration of independence states clearly that our rights come from God. The US was founded on this principle.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence
1 HelperBot_ 2018-05-21
Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence
HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 185404
1 PinkoPrepper 2018-05-21
Yeah, the declaration of independence. Your previous post said the Constitution, ie the one of the two that's the actual basis for our system of government.
1 saneromeo 2018-05-21
"The Constitution is based on God given rights" Those basis of those rights is outlined in the Declaration...
1 PinkoPrepper 2018-05-21
The Preamble to the Constitution, ie the link I included in my post.
1 saneromeo 2018-05-21
And the rights are granted where?
1 PinkoPrepper 2018-05-21
They aren't "granted," they are inherent, and the Constitution is enacted by the "People" to protect them.
1 saneromeo 2018-05-21
Then what is your question? I said the constitution was BASED on God given rights and this was your response: "The rights are derived from the people, not God or any government." So I quoted the Declaration which states they are endowed by a Creator, and you accused me of bait and switch. Then I asked where you got that rights came from people and without a source citation to back your previous claim you tell me they are inherent ie endowed by a Creator.
1 Homonoetic 2018-05-21
National convention online. Remove your representatives. Digital democracy or death.
1 PinkoPrepper 2018-05-21
The US Constitution is designed to make it hard to change, and to keep power away from the majority. The minority it empowers can thus make any change seem impossible.
1 CivilianConsumer 2018-05-21
It empowers every American with the closest thing to freedom you can find on the planet. Bin that knife mate.
1 inteuniso 2018-05-21
Yes, because having a constitutional amendment to render any criminal a slave to the state is definitely liberty and justice for all.
1 FartfullyYours 2018-05-21
Do you mean adding a Constitutional Amendment banning all forms of contributions to any government official?
1 selaromcire 2018-05-21
Not exactly, i mean im sure some of the basic principles will be transferred over but i was talking about a complete rewrite. modern wording, phrasing, and intent. updated, so to speak. amending the current one comes with to much red tape and bullshit.
1 FartfullyYours 2018-05-21
In other words, shitcanning the 2nd Amendment.
1 selaromcire 2018-05-21
If thats what the majority of people want, yes. thats democracy. but thats not what im suggesting. i believe a person has the right, god-given or not, to defending themselves and their loved ones, or to hunt. but there is a difference between a shotgun or handgun (or hunting rifles) and a military grade assault rifle.
on top of that the 2nd amendment mentions a well-formed and organized militia. ok. so join a militia if you see fit. i dont see a problem with that.
on the flip side, i dont see a point in militias but im open to hear the logic behind it, that being said we can easily include such things in the rewrite.
1 FartfullyYours 2018-05-21
Yes, it has been duly noted that semi-automatic rifles are the immediate target of the disarmament agenda, as they are the weapons capable of being used in any sort of resistance.
Since there is possible way for the oligarchy to create the public support to legally repeal the 2A, we get this infringement propaganda campaigns. Guns are the only reason that wealthy even bother pretending that we live in a democracy (rr).
1 selaromcire 2018-05-21
Just so i understand you clearly, from your stance you are saying that the agenda (from whomever) is to gain public support for "taking" assault rifles away from the everyday citizen, is that accurate?
If so, then i can empathize with that. however, taking away assault rifles to keep us controlled seems like a drop in a bucket. we're talking about the US military, which i was a member of. assault rifles....against drones, tanks, missiles, trained soldiers with body armor and tactics that would make your head spin....i dont think they are worried about any weapon that you may have outside of a high-powered sniper rifle, which from what ive read and please correct me if im wrong, is illegal for civilians to own. id wager that if true, its illegal because of the purpose of the weapon, similar to assault rifles, they are solely used to end human life....hence the argument that no civilian NEEDS an assault rifle.
My contention is this: you want a gun? fuckin go for it. but unless you are waging war there is no practical reason (and compensating for the snub nose you were born with is not practical) to own a weapon designed for war and only war. Get a shotgun for home protection, stow it and secure it, be responsible with it, and concede that you (or anyone that wants a gun) should go through a background check.
I know for most its an "all or nothing" deal to "keep your hands off my guns", but rational minds can think, and i think it can work if we do it with clarity, honesty, and a bit of trust.
1 FartfullyYours 2018-05-21
Absolutely. This why AR-15s are have been involved in almost every mass shooting since Sandy Hook. At Sandy Hook, the official story had to be "revised" multiple times over the course of a weekend to make the murder weapon a dreaded "assault rifle."
If the US military was ever deployed for combat in the US, it would be outright civil war, which is precisely what the oligarchy wants to avoid at all costs. Besides, any protracted US civil war would be a guerilla war and Vietnam demonstrated how well superior technology works in guerilla warfare.
Sniper rifles are legal in the US. The videos are all over Youtube. Regardless, your logic is flawed. Handguns have only one purpose; killing people. Yet, they are necessary. Similarly, semi-automatic rifles are necessary to keep the oligarchy in check, just like the Constitution intended. If the wealthy thought they could simply cancel the Constitution without repercussions, they would have done it 40 years ago.
1 FartfullyYours 2018-05-21
In other words, shitcanning the 2nd Amendment.