Ensuring A New American Century

Remove all ads!

Yeah strange stand point there Gaear lol.

 

Then don't post on a public forum.

 

Disagreeing with a specific part of the Constitution does not mean you can't love it as a whole. The Constitution is supposed to represent the way we organize ourselves to keep us a just and free society- the ability to amend it is there for a reason. The specific ideas and processes we use to help us towards that goal are supposed to be analyzed and changed over time, this does not mean we don't love our Constitution- we just want to make it better. The founders believed armed militias were vital to keep our nation secure. If this stops being the case, and we want to change it, we can do so without losing an ounce of love for the document itself.

 

Believe it or not, no.

@damedog, thanks, that's about the most coherent explanation of 'the other side' I've heard thus far. I still don't entirely agree, but I'll refrain from further debate as promised.

@Nakia, with your permission I'd like to PM you with replies to your last post above, as I don't believe a worthwhile public discussion can be had at this point.

 

Gaear, you do not need my permission to PM me. Whether I respond or not is my choice. I have no idea what you wish to discuss. We do not agree that is obvious.

 

Fair enough, thanks.

 

A black and white view of the Constitution and its amendments does seem a little shortsighted. It has always been a work in progress -- albeit very slow progress. As far as the 2nd amendment is concerned:

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.​

There are two main ways this is interpreted -- 1) that everyone has the right to own a gun. This is the path the Supreme Court has gone down. It is the rulings of the Supreme Court that have defined the 2nd amendment more than the amendment itself. 2) that the states have a right to form and arm a militia (National Guard).

Not everyone agrees with the interpretations by any particularly group. But that is the nature of amendments -- they only need two-thirds majority support. That means that nearly one-third of the population can disagree with the amendment and it will still be law. Do they have to "love" that amendment in order to "love" the Constitution and other amendments?

dmc and dr: That was the exact scene that kept playing over in my mind when the name of the new pope was announced. "You call me Francis ... I'll kill 'ya."