The US Constitution (not the ship)

[SanteeFats]

Originally Posted by loosegoose

I admit I don't understand the American mindset when it comes to believing that the right to own a gun is the last line of defence against a government you don't like.
Couldn't you just do what the rest of us do and vote them out?

Oh loosey come on man. You see what we have over here now. One will get in and IMO it will not matter who but the US will be in trouble. With your election set up there is more than a two party system and smaller groups actually get some representation. With the US it is R's or D's with an occasional so called independent.

[Rogerbh]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

The Battle of Athens was an extreme example where a political party takes unlawful control and armed citizens took it back.

[sydney1]

Originally Posted by loosegoose

I admit I don't understand the American mindset when it comes to believing that the right to own a gun is the last line of defence against a government you don't like.
Couldn't you just do what the rest of us do and vote them out?

Then you would be a Canadian.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Canada

When I lived in Toronto, only a few of my Canadian friends had fire-arms, and they were for hunting. I don't think any of them had handguns, they just don't have that mindset for acquiring an arsenal of weapons.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by profvolup

Nothing has changed over 400 years, and most of the modern firearms innovations started 200 years ago, and ended exactly 130 years ago.

Oh, a vast amount changed.

A rifle, musket or pistol of the kind with which the framers were familiar could fire perhaps one round per minute. Firearms were useful to an individual in hunting, but for military use, only massed fire was of significance. Individual aimed fire was occasionally used by the American revolutionaries, but it was more a nuisance than to military effect.

One man with a gun couldn't do much of anything by way of public mayhem in 1792, he could get off perhaps one inaccurate shot at someone nearby before being jumped. There was little possibility of an individual committing a massacre with a firearm.

In other changes, we have no need for members of the Militia to store their weapons at home, against the danger of Indian attack, which is what was foreseen in the 2nd Amendment.

So quite a lot has changed.

The guy with an AR-15 at home neither serves the Militia function contemplated by the 2nd Amendment, nor would its firepower be familiar to the Founders as a personal weapon.

[savage560]

Originally Posted by LadyLuck

What purpose would a Constitutional convention held every twenty years really serve in this day and age if the same mechanisms for amending the Constitution are still in effect? Think about the time in which Jefferson lived versus today. We have a twenty four hour news cycle. News and information can spread around the globe almost in real time with radio and television and the internet. In his day the idea made sense. It would have provided people with an opportunity to convene and share ideas. Technology has rendered that point moot.

But what the hell is/was done about revising the Constitution,even though we do have this ubiquitous mass media capability? We have done NOTHING to revise points in this old document recently , that are so archaic, its not anywhere near hitting on the pulse of this societies needs, in many definitions. Yes, like pertaining to the 14th amendment, that has got to be clarified, its a matter of having a nation that is sane & one that is not.

Change in order to better suit the nations needs, are needed if this nation has any common sense left in its bones.Sticking our heads in the sand & accepting the status quo because the stupid phrases like "That's what we do, we always bring in a lot of immigrants here," show how out of touch our leaders are with this nations tax paying public.Only a fool, or one who wants willingly to be destructive to this nations back bone, its middle class of tax payers, who are shrinking in numbers as we write here, would interpret a business as usual attitude to everything an archaic piece of legislature stated , 200+ years ago.If we will remain a sovereign nation , its evident changes of legislature, of law & electing leaders, who are not selling us out to the NWO , that wants to erase all borders ,is needed! Desperately!

[Sir Honkers]

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

With your election set up there is more than a two party system and smaller groups actually get some representation.

It's not without it's flaws. Some of the current crop of independents are not the sharpest tools in the shed but overall I think it has worked well at curbing the worst excesses of the Government of the day. And we didn't have to shoot anyone.
I'm Australian sydney

[SanteeFats]

Originally Posted by loosegoose

I'm Australian sydney

Sorry buddy for some reason I thought you were in upper hemisphere.

[Sir Honkers]

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

Sorry buddy for some reason I thought you were in upper hemisphere.

It's probably my accent. Happens all the time.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by savage560

But what the hell is/was done about revising the Constitution,even though we do have this ubiquitous mass media capability? We have done NOTHING to revise points in this old document recently , that are so archaic, its not anywhere near hitting on the pulse of this societies needs, in many definitions. Yes, like pertaining to the 14th amendment, that has got to be clarified, its a matter of having a nation that is sane & one that is not.

The Constitution is effectively "revised" to meet current circumstances by litigation. The Supreme Court is obligated to rule on the meaning of the Constitution where it is unclear-- where different jurisdictions have reached different conclusions (a "Circuit split").

I would prefer that we revise the Constitution by Amendment, as provided for in the document itself; but the politics of this are, and have been for some time, impossible.

So we revise it by litigation.

[savage560]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

The Constitution is effectively "revised" to meet current circumstances by litigation. The Supreme Court is obligated to rule on the meaning of the Constitution where it is unclear-- where different jurisdictions have reached different conclusions (a "Circuit split").

I would prefer that we revise the Constitution by Amendment, as provided for in the document itself; but the politics of this are, and have been for some time, impossible.

So we revise it by litigation.

Good point, at that, & yes it can be revised to meet current mores of society, & to keep up with the times.The times have changed monumentally in 200+ years!GD ,it was written over 200 years ago.Many here ,there & every where seem to think the "Gods" wrote this document, but lets be brutally honest, they were men with flaws as all are.

We need not only amendments, but tweeking ,not a re-wright, but very serous revisions, in areas where the FFs back then couldn't even dream , in their absolute "wildest sleepy time visions" of what the world would be like 200+ years from their time.They'd certainly be shocked if they knew what was going on in the US today.You can look it up, but its a fact that Jefferson stated it would take at least 40 generations to adequately populate this nation, in a vision back then, of it spanning from Atlantic to Pacific, probably not even taking into account of territories acquired by this nation , not inclusive in the Louisiana Purchase.Wow was that off the mark, for reasons that old "TJ" couldn't even dream of!

Why have a document so vague that it is constantly subject to interpretations by at one time, a conservative controlled USSC & other times a super liberal USSC?Like a prime example ,the 14th. amendment. Lets spell the GD thing out to clarify it , & modernize it to this day & age?IMHO I lean very much toward those who believe that if one gives birth in this nation & is NOT a citizen of it, their born here , are not citizens by the reason of "jus soli".It is invalid & not a right of citizenship & is unlawful, in that example. This is a practice that is not valid without restrictions in most nations WW (only 16% have virtually unrestricted jus soli WW),in most nations its not valid when illegal citizens are the parents of the "born" in the said nation. Bar this goofy one. & a few others.We can go on to further define birth rite citizenship, that is very vague now.

Times have also changed since the 2nd was passed, we can spell that one out too.& so many more, & be clear & not leave it up to regimes in charge here , at the whim of men who are biased, & probably bought & paid for, in many instances.