Guns, Guns Guns

[White Knight]

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Sep 11 2005, 06:20 PM']Actually, you are quite wrong.  One amendment made drinking illegal in every state of Union, another withdrew that amendment.  Another amendment changed the method of electing Senators, another made slavery illegal, whereas in the original Constitution slavery was recognized.

NOTHING stops a complete makeover of the Constitution, except the process that is required to amend it, which itself can be amended, if the original formula is used to pass the amendment.

I suggest you actually read the Constitution before you render judgments on it.  After all, what kind of a document, conceived and written by a group with ties to the freemasons, that reduces slaves to amounting to 3/4 the value of an American citizen, can claim either perfection or immutability.  That's nonsense and not supported by the writers of the Constitution themselves.
[right][snapback]719698[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]




So You are saying we can make a admendment "if we wanted too" that overrides the First Admendment? if so thats insane. and it doesn't make any sense.

[son_of_angels]

Yes, we certainly could. Hey, that's democracy.

[White Knight]

I do agree that the Constitution is not like the Bible at all as far as being infallible and all.

But changing the Constitution's basic foundation is like changing the entire Bible's Foundation, it just falls apart.


If what you speak is true, something about this needs to be done.

[MichaelFilo]

A quick lesson on the Constitution and it's ammendments:

The Constitution is changeable (that is why we have ammednments, to ammend it). The first ten ammendments were added on so that 4 then-soverign-states would sign the Constitution because they had a fear that the Constituation was seeking to take away the basic rights that the Revolutionary war bought back for them. These 4 states were anti-fedralistists. Now, only one case in history is known of any ammednment repealing another part, that is the prohibition on alcohol and then the removal of said prohabtion. Slavery is mentioned in a round-about way in the Constituion (but not explicitly). Why? Because the North had already deep-rooted abolitionist movements in action. They would not allow the idea of slavery to come into the Constitution beacuse they hoped to rid the new country of it completely, but could not explicitly make a statement of freedom for slaves in the Constitution because they South would not sign. Anyways, back to the point, the Constitution never once mentions slaves or slavery. It being abolished has little to do with a reversal of some part of the Constitution and had more to do with the Constitution being a living document.

The Bill of Rights, however, is something that is taboo to touch. Why? Listen to the name, "Bill of Rights". Rights in the United States equal freedom. Now, the first 10 Ammendments are like a taboo to change. It just wouild not fly well, and likely not fly at all.

However, in theory, the Constituation can be scrapped and a whole new one maybe written up. Why, thats how the Constituation was made! Needless to say, that goes for any part of the Constituation as well. Of course, Theory and practicallity are usually conflicting things.

God bless,
Mikey

[Winchester]

The first ten amendments are generally seen as outgrowths of the Bill of Rights. Clarifications if you will.

My right to bear arms sufficient to protect my life is not given by the constitution.

It is merely acknowledged by it.

[Socrates]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Sep 11 2005, 09:32 PM']A quick lesson on the Constitution and it's ammendments:

The Constitution is changeable (that is why we have ammednments, to ammend it). The first ten ammendments were added on so that 4 then-soverign-states would sign the Constitution because they had a fear that the Constituation was seeking to take away the basic rights that the Revolutionary war bought back for them. These 4 states were anti-fedralistists. Now, only one case in history is known of any ammednment repealing another part, that is the prohibition on alcohol and then the removal of said prohabtion. Slavery is mentioned in a round-about way in the Constituion (but not explicitly). Why? Because the North had already deep-rooted abolitionist movements in action. They would not allow the idea of slavery to come into the Constitution beacuse they hoped to rid the new country of it completely, but could not explicitly make a statement of freedom for slaves in the Constitution because they South would not sign. Anyways, back to the point, the Constitution never once mentions slaves or slavery. It being abolished has little to do with a reversal of some part of the Constitution and had more to do with the Constitution being a living document.

The Bill of Rights, however, is something that is taboo to touch. Why? Listen to the name, "Bill of Rights". Rights in the United States equal freedom. Now, the first 10 Ammendments are like a taboo to change.  It just wouild not fly well, and likely not fly at all.

However, in theory, the Constituation can be scrapped and a whole new one maybe written up. Why, thats how the Constituation was made! Needless to say, that goes for any part of the Constituation as well. Of course, Theory and practicallity are usually conflicting things.

God bless,
Mikey
[right][snapback]719981[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The U.S. Constitution was made to provide a legal basis for how the U.S. was to be governed, and to place certain specific limits on the power of the federal government (which, unfortunately, have been rather disregarded).

This "living document" nonsense is a lot of stupid liberal propaganda used to justify re-writing or reinterpreting the Constitution to mean whatever activist judges want ti to mean, rather than what it actually says.

This was NOT the intent of the American founders, and no doubt they would be horrified to see how the Constitution has been twisted and just plain disregarded by lawmakers, judges, and politicians.

Ammendments have an inherent weakness in that they can (and have) been used to change the law from what was orignially stated, but the orignal idea of having ammendments was to clarify the original law in more specific issues that arise, NOT to contradict what was originallly in the law.

"However, in theory, the Constituation can be scrapped and a whole new one maybe written up. Why, thats how the Constituation was made!"
- I cannot even follow what you are trying to say here. This was certainly not the intention of the framers of the Constitution. The Constitution was intended as a document that could simply be scrapped or completely changed on people's whims, but as a solid legal foundation for the United States.
A completely disposable constitution would be pointless.

Yeah, "in theory," we could just burn the Constitution and set up a Communist dictatorship, but whose theory would that be? It would certainly not be the intent of the Constution's original framers.

I'd recomend reading the works of the late Russell Kirk, or some other good conservative political writer/historian, or read a good, solid history of the American founding, rather than this ludicrous liberal drivel you've apparently been hearing.

Edited September 12, 2005 by Socrates

[DeeDee]

I sold all my guns, or my late husband's guns I should say. Those things gave me the creeps.

[son_of_angels]

Really, I never knew that the right to defend one's life in extraordinary means (yes, that means taking another's life) was protected by divine law. In fact, I thought martyrdom was a blessing.

To defend others' lives, by joining the army or using weapons, perhaps an argument could be made, but it seems dubitable. After all, early Christians were often automatically excommunicated for joining an army or completing a death sentence.

Don't put words in God's mouth. The Constitution is not a church document, nor prescribed by an ecumenical council, but rather a human document filled with masonic and enlightenment ideals. IT IS NOT INFALLIBLE NOR UNIVERSALLY APPLICABLE.

[Socrates]

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Sep 12 2005, 09:45 PM']Really, I never knew that the right to defend one's life in extraordinary means (yes, that means taking another's life) was protected by divine law.  In fact, I thought martyrdom was a blessing.

To defend others' lives, by joining the army or using weapons, perhaps an argument could be made, but it seems dubitable. After all, early Christians were often automatically excommunicated for joining an army or completing a death sentence.

Don't put words in God's mouth.  The Constitution is not a church document, nor prescribed by an ecumenical council, but rather a human document filled with masonic and enlightenment ideals.  IT IS NOT INFALLIBLE NOR UNIVERSALLY APPLICABLE.
[right][snapback]721329[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Whatever the U.S. Constitution says about it (and it clearly protects the right to bear arms), the right to defend one's life is a natural right, and should be protected by any laws which respects natural law.

Martyrdom is heroic (going beyond natural virtue), but it should not be required. Does this mean we should support a government that puts Christians to death, so that more Christians can be "blessed with martyrdom"?

While guns may often take lives, it is not even always necessary to kill with gun to disable the attacker (death is often the unintended consequence of the act of defense.)

Firearms do NOT constitute "extraordinary means" of self-defense. The truth is that in the modern world, where guns exist, having a firearm is often the only practical way of defending oneself or one's loved ones against attackers who are armed with guns. (Or even for an old person or woman to protect themselves against strong young thugs). Most citizens are not superheroes and cannot rely on their superior mystical ninja skills to disable an armed attacker.

Is it better for a man to defend his home, wife and children against armed attackers with a firearm, or for the innocent to be brutally killed because of some policy ruling against such "extraordinary defense."

And truth be told, I'm getting sick of how on phatmass someone seems to always be attacking legitimate principles in the Constitution with the ad-hominem of how evil and masonic it supposedly is, rather than actually arguing about the laws themselves.

Edited September 13, 2005 by Socrates

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Sep 13 2005, 12:11 AM']Most citizens are not superheroes and cannot rely on their superior mystical ninja skills to disable an armed attacker.   
[right][snapback]721376[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
i rely on my superior mystical ninja skills just fine

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Sep 12 2005, 11:11 PM']

Is it better for a man to defend his home, wife and children against armed attackers with a firearm, or for the innocent to be brutally killed because of some policy ruling against such "extraordinary defense."


[right][snapback]721376[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes indeed. That's why I have one of these:

[img]http://world.guns.ru/handguns/sw360.jpg[/img]

[Theoketos]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Sep 12 2005, 10:11 PM']

And truth be told
[right][snapback]721376[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Once again Socrates for the win.

[Proud2BCatholic139]

My ex-boyfriend and I got into a fight about armed weapons.
Oh, wow.
I beleive in guns, not in my house.
I know that guns don't kill people. People kill people. And even though it is secure, what if my children find it and think it is a toy? I'm not saying guns are bad, but I'd keep it in storage. Not in my house.

[hierochloe]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Sep 12 2005, 10:11 PM']While guns may often take lives, it is not even always necessary to kill with gun to disable the attacker (death is often the unintended  consequence of the act of defense.)
[right][snapback]721376[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

If I'm going to shoot, I shoot to kill.

BTW, remember Caddy Shack:
[quote]Guns don't kill people, [b]I[/b] kill people.
[/quote]

Edited September 13, 2005 by hierochloe

[Winchester]

thanks Socrates.