Americans are exceptional because they live by a constitution from the 1700s

Our forefathers not only allowed the citizenship to have arms to protect them from a dictator government, but to protect their selves and their family from people who would harm them. They also knew that they could use them in case the country was attacked. Lets not forget many still use guns to hunt for food. Of course we know if left up to the Left, they would disarm us if they had a chance.

 

In the shallow depths of the minds from the Right, their imaginations always seem hit the wrong tune.

 

Come now many on the Left have made no secret of wanting to disarm the American people.

 

Bingo!

well not really but that is a great pic.

Both democracy and a republic remove your rights and place them in the hands of another.

- - - Updated - - -

they look like they are pretty well disarmed already

 

Since Obama can't legally take our weapons away, he has done the next best thing, by buying up all the ammunition so you can't use them. My Son and I went out Friday as my Son wanted to get some 22's and 9 mil. We couldn't find a single box of either. But lucky enough I had 4 bricks of 22's and gave him two bricks.

 

that would be an infringement on the "right to bear" "arms".

 

Something strange is going on. Federal non-military agencies have bought two billion rounds of ammunition in the last 10 months. The Obama Administration says that federal law enforcement agents need the ammunition for “mandatory quarterly firearms qualifications and other training sessions.”

Radio show host Mark Levin is suspicious. He commented:

To provide some perspective, experts estimate that at the peak of the Iraq war American troops were firing around 5.5 million rounds per month. At that rate, the [Department of Homeland Security] is armed now for a 24-year Iraq war.

 

It's the same reason Pink Floyd never made a disco album. Because some of us recognize the value of timelessness and do not fall prey to passing trends that make us look stupid in retrospect. Progressivism is nothing but a series of fads aimed at altering the status quo to make it more "up to the moment" regardless of whether or not these changes actually improve anything.

 

Well, I could say that Pink Floyd is rather progressive rock, though more psychedelic genre, but that only invite some question of what really are the progressive ideals in politics, that's different than music. Want to be caught up in the moment, consciousness of the shortest of the short term memory. It's set up that way with computers, too. Twitter and Facebook, what need of your own mind if you've outsourced all your memories to the machine, and then what happens later on when they start editing it for you, and by Murphy's Law they most certainly will, are you going to know the difference, or if you dare post a message to your friends that it seems like something's changed, like you're in an alternate timeline, will they just be programs to mock you or accuse you of being crazy or what? What kind of progress is that for civilization?

 

It's not just the Right who approves of guns to protect against a tyrannical government....


"But if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you ... it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."
- Dalai Lama

" ... the right to defend one's home and one's person when attacked has been guaranteed through the ages by common law."
- Martin Luther King

"The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him."
- G. K. Chesterton

James Earl Jones: "The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose."

I don't even call it violence when it's in self defense; I call it intelligence.
Malcolm X

'Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.' Ghandi

 

Touché! I suppose Floyd was an interesting choice here on my part being a prog rock band. Which I guess further highlights the differences in the respective definitions of the word "progressive" between the musical sphere and the political sphere.

 

I suppose if you limit forefathers to british statists that may be true, they had to get permission from the king for everything pretty much like the US today.

 

Nowhere in the Constitution does it require such things. Remember, it's the "right of the People", not the "militia". Why is it that morons constantly say that everywhere else in the Constitution "the People" means the citizenry, but not in the case of the 2nd Amendment?

 

Does it matter, really? The Patriot Act overrides it regardless. We may as well be talking about what sunk the Titanic, as compared to discussing whether or not the Constitution is relevant anymore.

 

not according to the supreme court.

it means the states.


Now I would be inclined to agree with you, only its not limited to "citizens".

If its limited to citizens what are non-citizens? beef cattle?

Lots of problems here.

Worse it says "People", not "people"!

So which people are we talking about and can you prove it?

Starting to get the picture what was done here?

 

Actually that "greatest attempt" would be England's Magna Carta of 1215, followed by our Bill of Rights (1689), both of which pre-date your Constitution and from which it, and your legal system, are derived. Our Charter of Liberties, 1100, preceded the Magna Carta and outlined the limit of King John's powers over his subjects.

 

As ratified:

It's not placing a restriction on gun ownership; saying that only in a militia is gun ownership protected.

On the contrary, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is a justification for, not a qualification to, the following limitation on Federal authority, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

What the 2nd amendment does do:

• Limit the Federal government's existing enumerated powers - for example, providing for the general welfare.
• Make illegal under higher law any legislative act or otherwise undertaken by the Federal government that restricts gun ownership.
• Consequently make illegal any restriction on the ability of citizens to have complete, exclusive use of firearms; for trade, use or otherwise - at the Federal level.

What the 2nd amendment does not do:

• Give the government any additional powers whatsoever:
  • The 9th amendment makes clear that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
  • The original text clarifies: "That those clauses which declare that Congress shall not exercise certain powers be not interpreted in any manner whatsoever to extend the powers of Congress. But that they may be construed either as making exceptions to the specified powers where this shall be the case, or otherwise as inserted merely for greater caution."
• Restrict the states from passing legislation contrary to the 2nd amendment:
  • The 10th amendment makes clear that, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
  • The Federal constitution was derived from the authority of the states, which was derived from the people themselves (at least that's how the lingo goes). The constitution hence doesn't limit the authority of the states unless it explicitly says so, in the same way that state constitutions don't limit the authority of the people unless they explicitly say so (eg: treason).
  • The 14th amendment is argued to extend this to the states, but its ratification was extremely questionable, it being a condition of readmission to the union.

 

No, according to the SCOTUS it means individual citizens.

Nope, the "p" is not capitalized.

 

Updating? How?

 

The SCOTUS disagrees with that view. They have ruled that the Second Amendment applies to personal ownership of weapons for self defense.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/mcdonaldopinion08-1521.pdf

 

Because our Constitution is still superior despite being older. It is THAT good.

Also...it is technically not from the 1700s. There are many Amendments that have altered it since then. This is not the Constitution of the Founders.

 

First, tell us why you are so jealous of America? You could just move here you know.
Oh, you're unhappy with life in general. I see. Okay, then let me tell you why we don't change our Constitution.

We do. It's called Amendments.

But since you don't like that answer I'll give you this one:

Some truths are lasting. Our founders were fair and intelligent enough to see ahead when they used certain truths in our Constitution.

 

The age of an idea has no bearing on its merit.

 

You know, come to think of it, you're right. Having a Constitution that was written so well it has lasted 200 years DOES make our country exceptional.

Well, darn it. I like YOUR country too though. It's not so bad. I'd come visit your beautiful land, and my wife and I would love it, if I wasn't so happy right here.

 

I didn't say 'idea'. I said 'truth'.

Please read more carefully.

But I do still give you credit for the Virgo supercluster thing, Spirit.