Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an unofficial archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page or the footnote if you have questions.
Poll
Which Amendment should be first to go ?
First Amendment 2%
Second Amendment 21%
Seventh Amendment 8%
All of them 21%
Who cares ? USA is #1 nation. Suck it down. 45%

Votes: 37

 The US Constitution - past its sell-by date ?

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Oct 17, 2001
 Comments:
For hundreds of years, our Constitution created by the finest patriots, politicians and lawyers from throughout the colonies protected us from the wilder excesses of centralized government, and protected our freedoms from those who would take them away.

Ever since we threw off the yoke of oppression by our toffee-nosed British rulers and demanded 'No taxation without representation' that old hemp document has been both shield and sword in our battle to protect our freedoms.

So why then do I believe that the Constitution is due for a radical overhaul ?

Read on, and I shall tell you.

constitution

More stories about Constitution
Why America needs laws against flag burning.
Feature: Flags
Wicca and the Insult to Religion

More stories by
dmg

America wages psychological war on Iranian soccer team
Wicca - a scientific, Christian approach to the problem
Reparation and reconcilation - the time is right.
Is it time women covered up at work ?
The Malaise of the Middle Classes.
Christianity isn't working in the USA; Is Islam the answer ?
European Union eclipses US in games market - what next ?
SUV's Bigger and Better - The Ultimate American Dream
Sports- The direct cause of Racism in America today.
US in recession. What should we do about it ?
Marion 'Suge' Knight to be released - Young white rap fans in danger ?
Building your dream PC. What the experts don't tell you.
How to increase the lifespan of your PC.
The Democratization of Status. Rap music is to blame.
World Trade Center - Capitalizing on terrorist atrocities.
You are not Irish, They are not Republicans. Please stop sending them money and guns.
A Taliban Warlord answers YOUR questions.
Anthrax - Please, PLEASE change your name.
Anthrax - Some factual corrections, but no apology.
Some help for all you aspiring Santas.
Fuck Cunt Shit Piss Cocksucker Motherfucker Tits
DMG's spicy chilli-lemon chicken with toasted cashews
The Semiotics of modern 'Popular' music - Symbolism and Discourse
Linux Zealot - The Internet's most controversial cartoon superhero
My Vacation Dilemma. How can I be an ethical tourist ?
Linux Zealot learns a valuable lesson.
Internet Licenses: An Idea Whose Time Has Come?
Linux Zealot sticks to his guns.
Great Britain must keep the pound.
Torture - it's inevitable, so lets do it right !
The supposedly civilized Europeans. (A WARNING TO ALL AMERICANS)
Sigmund Freud, Linux and The Narcissism of Minor Difference
America - Land of the free ? Or home of the DEPRAVED ?
British engineering genius and the Homosexualist Socialist conspiracy
Linux Zealot attempts to get laid.
Which is the best way to predict the future ?
God Bless you your Majesty, adequacy.org salutes you!
The History of Rap.
Theater Review: My Fair Lady
Linux Zealot contributes to the Open Source Community
Linux Zealot vs the RIAA.
A Guide to the United Kingdom for Americans.
The Constitution of the USA is a venerable document. For many Americans, it is almost a 'sacred text'. It is one of the many things that made America great, and which set us apart from other countries. Unfortunately there are a couple of problems with it, which cannot easily be addressed, due to the almost religious fervour of the 'Constitutionally Correct' right wing elements in our society.

These reactionary forces of conservatism seem to believe that the Constitution is set in stone, they have elevated it to the point where it has attained mystical significance, rather than being a simple functional document describing what the voting public believed in some 200 years ago.

Suggest that it should be changed and you will bring on the wrath of fundamentalist constitution worshipping lunatics of every shape and form.

To understand why the constitution must be radicaly redesigned, you have to go back a couple of hundred years. Think back to the kind of mindset which prevailed during those times. Slavery was commonplace. Women's rights were almost non-existant, indeed until the 19th Amendment was enacted, they could not even vote. Homosexuals were persecuted, the death penalty for sodomy was only revoked in South Carolina as recently as 1873. Religious tolerance was not high on the agenda with Wiccans singled out for especially poor treatement.

So as we can see, the constitution was borne of a period of history which most of us today would consider barbaric. This is what I see as a major problem with the constitution.

The second problem with the constitution is that many of the amendments have perverted its original spirit.

Consider the following 'amendments' to the constitution, and my explainations as to why they are harmful.

  • First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    This is one of the MAJOR flaws in our constitution. The idea that all speech is of equal value. How ridiculous. The problem here is that it creates friction between groups, where a more restrictive law would promote harmony.

    Here in the USA we are allowed to use racial insults, and hurl abuse at respected religious figures in the name of "freedom", but almost all civilized countries recognize that to protect the rights of minorities, it is necessary to restrict freedom of speech. This is not some Orwellian nightmare or Soviet-style oppression.

    It is simply good government. It forces us to respect minorites and diversity. This inevitably leads to a more harmonious society. Unrestricted freedom of speech is a lofty ideal, but 'Joe Sixpack' cannot be trusted not to abuse this right.

    Getting some reasonable restrictions on what can and cannot be said is the first step toward creating a racism-free society for our children.

  • Second Amendment: 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.

    Another glaring piece of constitutional stupidity. In the days when the most powerful weapon was an unreliable flintlock pistol, I guess it might have made sense to allow the public to own killing tools such as these. The chances of them actually working was remote. However in these days when the high tech arsenal of Mac-10, Tec-9, Glock, Uzi, H&K MP5, and various other tools of mass murder are in the hands of every crack dealer on every corner, does it really make sense to persist with such an anachronism ? Columbine is just one example of the thousands which demonstrate clearly the moral bankruptcy of allowing 'Joe Sixpack' to get his hands on these lethal toys.

    Here we could learn a lot from our cousins across the pond. They recently outlawed handguns completely, and have experienced a spectacular fall in the number of crimes committed with legally held handguns.

    If we do not start to remove guns from circulation our children face the prospect of Columbine in their schools, or accidental death in the home. Is this a price worth paying for a constitutional amendment of so little practical value ?

    I realise that the gun hobbyists will object to having their toys taken from them, so I propose that we remove them gradually, like when someone is trying to get off drugs. We could start by outlawing all automatics, then semi-automatics a year later, then in further years handguns (45s 38s 9mm), and finally air pistols. The political outcry from the gun lobby would be a small price to pay for the safety of our children.

  • Seventh Amendment: In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

    In these days of high priced lawyers, is trial by jury really the most economic way to proceed ? Should the taxpayer be forced to pay for lawyers for known criminals ? It is ridiculous that all criminals should automatically have the right to trial by jury. In the vast majority of cases, the police know the person they caught was guilty, and it is obvious to everyone concerned. In such cases, the police should be allowed to use their discretion as to whether a jury trial is warranted.

    If the cost of the trial would amount to more than the cost of the alleged crime, then it is simple economics. The public interest is not served by a jury trial, the case should be decided by a hand-picked panel of expert judges to save time and money. (This should happen behind closed doors to avoid a media circus like the OJ Simpson trial). Again our European friends are ahead of our game on this one

    The constitution is part of our history and one we should be proud of, but in these days of terrorism, feminism, multi-culturalism, globalization, the internet, cheap drugs and guns it is starting to look less and less like a sensible way to run a society, and more like a recipie for the total breakdown of American society.

    My proposed solution to this is for the Federal Government to intervene, and develop a massive computer system which could be used to survey every single voter in the country on a wide variety of issues (gun rights, homosexual rights, maternity/paternity leave etc etc etc). This survey could be filled in online, by everyone in the country of voting age.

    Once the results were collated in the massive database, they could be given to a team of constitutional lawyers who could then draft a new constitution for us.

    This constitution would be less 'buggy' than our 18th century relic, and therefore more easy to use. It would enumerate the rights that are relevent to today's society, and would better reflect the diversity of views and opinions that make up American society today.

    And it certainly would not allow teenagers to go on the rampage with automatic weapons, or rhinestone racists like David Duke and Pat Robertson to spew their vile sewage into our living rooms.




  • Amendment X is the most dangerous (none / 0) (#2)
    by moriveth on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 02:48:14 PM PST
    An interesting and provocative piece. I entirely agree about the Second and Seventh Amendments, as I think any reasonable person would; although I definitely can see your point about the First Amendment, I would hesitate to overturn it, as that would wreak havoc on a large body of legal theory. I also think that a strong case can be made for the reconsideration of the Eleventh, Nineteenth, and Twenty-First Amendments.

    That said, I think you overlook the most pernicious, insidious provision in the entire Constitution, the Tenth Amendment:
    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.
    What does this mean? It means that the government can only exercise a few powers explicitly listed in the Constitution--a Constitution written in the 17th Century, before governments in the modern sense existed. But this means that the federal government, in fact, can do very little at all. In the recent past, this has not been a problem, as a blissfully ignorant liberal judiciary let unpleasant provisions like this slide. For this lack of dilligence in legal scholarship, we can count ourselves fortunate.

    But now, George W. Bush is set to appoint several members of the Supreme Court, and they will surely be hard-nosed legal scholars ("strict contortionists") who will no longer overlook unpleasant phrases like "reserved to the states." herefore, we can expect this provision to be taken seriously and expanded.

    And that would be a gross disaster. Imagine a government with no ability to pass economic legislation. To run airport security. To run the FBI. To adjust interest rates. To raise an income tax. It would mean the end of America's position as the world's superpower. That's our future, unless we repeal the Tenth Amendment.


    subject (none / 0) (#4)
    by clays on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 03:06:57 PM PST
    are you pro moonshining, or anti liquor. it deals with both


    Don't go to his URL ! (none / 0) (#23)
    by Inden on Thu Oct 18th, 2001 at 03:12:24 PM PST
    This man's URL is a nightmarish mind f*ck


    what (none / 0) (#25)
    by clays on Thu Oct 18th, 2001 at 04:04:34 PM PST
    whats wrong with my web page, its a picture


    this (none / 0) (#26)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 18th, 2001 at 04:21:19 PM PST
    republicans look better in disguise


    Please enter a subject for your comment. (none / 0) (#38)
    by clays on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 06:29:03 AM PST
    i vote for the better person, not whoever is on my team at the time. elementary school sandbox politics may work for you; not so for me.


     
    "clay" is a known troll! (none / 0) (#28)
    by tkatchev on Thu Oct 18th, 2001 at 09:23:28 PM PST
    This "clay" persona is a known troll. I suggest that drastic action be taken, as adequacy.org has a strict no-trolling policy.


    --
    Peace and much love...




     
    you're ignoring (none / 0) (#5)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 03:36:20 PM PST
    The General Welfare Clause, Article I, Section 8.

    What does this mean? It means that the government can only exercise a few powers explicitly listed in the Constitution

    The words "..provide for the Common Defense and General Welfare of the United States.... " provide Congress with the power to determine those objects which together constitute the general welfare of the United States, and having done so may legislate for such purposes as declared to be within the meaning of the term "general welfare".

    But this means that the federal government, in fact, can do very little at all.

    The "general welfare" meant cases in which a general power might be exercised by Congress, without interfering with the powers of the States. Finally, the enumeration of powers in the 10th is meant to be qualititative. It is not credible to think of Madison as someone who abandoned his arch federalism for the Constitution he wrote.


     
    Uh... (none / 0) (#6)
    by westgeof on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 03:41:34 PM PST
    The 10th amendment has hardly any meaning whatsoever. All it says is that anything not specifically covered is up to the states. However, that doesn't give the states anything substantial, it only gives them what the federal government doesn't want. Usually when something new comes up it can be filed under something already mentioned in the constitution, but even if it isn't there's always the amendment process.

    As for the article itself, I think the whole Constitution needs a massive overhaul. It's been patched enough times, what we need is a 'revided draft,' updated for our time. A very dangerous undertaking, but as long as it's handled carefully, we should be able to create a new constitution with the spirit of the old.


    As a child I wanted to know everything. Now I miss my ignorance.

     
    youre a sad person (3.00 / 2) (#3)
    by clays on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 02:58:07 PM PST
    i dont think you even read the article you linked to. the first words say "Handgun crime 'up' despite ban." whats wrong with you?

    the constitution is a foundation for the government to base its policies on. it is not a personal guide, or a moral police metric. people who base their every action on documents written before they were born are pathetic.

    one of the things that makes the constitution great is our ability to amend it. freedom of speech gives you the ability to write articles like this. asking for restriction of speech by writing a free speech article is asinine.

    "in these days of terrorism, feminism, multi-culturalism, globalization, the internet, cheap drugs and guns"

    terrorism is thousands of years old. women have always been feminine. multiple cultures have always been in the presence of other cultures. trade made cultural sharing, and globalization possible. the printed word, radio, and television are the internets of the past. drugs have always been cheap, and most of the time, legal. if its not a gun, its anything else that maims.

    if youre going to attempt to re write historical documents, start with your old testament. the difference is that the orators of the constitution dont claim to have divine interpretation. they didnt put a clause in that explained you would be eternally tormented if your personal beliefs varied. more importantly, they didnt claim they were correct.


    please (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 03:47:02 PM PST
    asking for restriction of speech by writing a free speech article is asinine.

    Freedom of Speech is well defined only in the meaning of the word 'of'. Freedom and Speech are much more difficult to elaborate, and all modern constitutions have provisions against hate speech just as the US has provisions against fighting words, but no protection for speech in commercial contexts where virtually all censorship takes place. The Constitution is a rhetorical document, not a logically coherent political theory.


    Nope. (none / 0) (#15)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 11:28:31 PM PST
    Freedom of Speech is well defined only in the meaning of the word 'of'.

    Please define it, then. What does "of" mean?


    duh (none / 0) (#16)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 18th, 2001 at 12:01:17 AM PST
    It's a particle demonstrating possession or attribution.


     
    poor persecuted wiccans (1.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 04:39:57 PM PST
    "To understand why the constitution must be radicaly redesigned, you have to go back a couple of hundred years.... blah,blah,blah...Religious tolerance was not high on the agenda with Wiccans singled out for especially poor treatement."


    Wow! I had no idea the Wiccans have been persecuted for so long. That's amazing, considering wicca is a bastardisation of a mixture of pagan theories, and the Wiccan movement only began during the 1950's. But, as stated above, your high quality research permeates this entire document. Well done for sounding like a complete jackass!


    Don't insult the practicioners of Wicca (none / 0) (#17)
    by dmg on Thu Oct 18th, 2001 at 05:14:35 AM PST
    Follow the link and you might learn something.

    time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
    -- MC Hawking

     
    Idealists and language (4.00 / 1) (#10)
    by T Reginald Gibbons on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 05:20:45 PM PST
    I've often thought that the greatest flaw in the US constitution is not the content. It is my feeling that the constitution would be greatly improved by use of language sufficient to express the exact intention of the document, rather than leaving every single sentence open to misinterpretation and argument. The fact that the United States cannot agree on the meaning of their most important legal document is a national disgrace. Do the British bicker over the intention of phrases in the Magna Carta? Of course they do not. Even the execrable Australians have managed to cobble together a constitution that does not provoke constant debate. Why can't the greatest nation on Earth do the same?

    Of course, the various people responsible for drafting the constitution may be forgiven for their sloppy language. They were idealists, and the document is an idealistic document. It isn't intended to reflect reality, but serves instead as a advertisement for the US system of government. As such it has been quite effective. It has not been nearly so effective at promoting the rule of law, for the betterment of the people.

    One disastrous side-effect of the constitution's idealistic language is it's approachability. Any armchair-lawyer can obtain a copy of the constitution, and at five minutes reading, consider himself a well-rounded constitutional lawyer, ready to irritate friends, family and nation with his new found knowledge, most of which is absurdly incorrect. It is both a triumph of english expression and a disaster of modern law that the US constitution has remained readable over two hundred years, while most other legal documents are all but incomprehensible.

    Perhaps the most regrettable flaw in the language of the constitution is that definitions are largely abandoned. It is quite well known that the words "freedom" and "liberty" did not refer to individuals prior to the civil war, simply because people did not respect the concept of individuality. When people in the eighteenth century said "the people" this was understood to mean "the people as a group" not "every individual in the nation". In many cases, the constitution uses the word "people" when it really means "states". The document would be vastly improved by the addition of a lengthy and precise and complete set of definitions prior to the body of the document. This step alone would have obviated much of the constitutional debate in the United States. The fact that it is absent is pure unforgiveable negligence.

    In order to improve the rest of the document, a rigid structure must be adhered to, and the language provided in the definitions above strictly applied. Where documents exist to further describe and support the intention of the authors, citations should be given. Where it is necessary to use a word in a sense other than the definition given, a footnote should be made.

    These are but a few of the alterations required to transform the constitution into a concrete legal document, and take it away from the clumsy hands of the people to place it firmly in the wiser experienced domain of the courts. The fact that the drafters of the constitution did not think to apply such linguistic precision has resulted in a nation that continues to drift further and further from their ideals, and promises to fragment completely if something is not done to correct their haphazard pseudo-legal compositions.


     
    On the Second Amendment (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 06:19:35 PM PST
    The perfect response for the tragedies on 9/11 is a 1911. Thats correct, the 1911 45 caliber handgun placed against someone's temple.

    It is the Second Amendment that allows us to own such wondeful tools to help keep us free and to prevent people like the author of this article from enslaving us. Help the ecomony and help yourself: Buy a gun today,


    You go girl! (3.00 / 2) (#12)
    by elenchos on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 07:30:09 PM PST
    Your local Army recruiter is waiting to see you TODAY! Get down there because your nation needs you NOW! There's fighting to be done and you're just the one... etc., etc.

    Everybody knows how to fill in the rest. Thanks for playing.


    I do, I do, I do
    --Bikini Kill


    eh... (none / 0) (#29)
    by Hunsvotti on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 12:24:25 AM PST
    Yeah... after all, there could only be one way to look at the Deuce...

    I know one (several?) Anonymous Reader who wound up clawing his own eyes out of their sockets after an unsuccessful attempt to prove to me that his black-and-white view of the second amendment was the only possible interpretation. Take a look at the "Anthrax, Please Change Your Name" article. It'll be the the post that threads down to about 15 deep. Interesting reading regardless of which side you are on.


    Pinched a nerve did we? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 12:35:38 AM PST
    That argument ended a day ago and you're apparently still fuming about it. Dear oh dear.


    Fuming? (none / 0) (#31)
    by Hunsvotti on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 02:34:30 AM PST
    This game of using emotionally loaded words and phrases appears to be your watermark. It seems to be your primary method of inflicting hurt against anyone who you cannot best in an argument. I am amused by this.

    I LEARNED from that argument. I learned how to avoid a kind of trap that one can fall into while debating, which is known to scholars as the "complex question." I am a better man because of that argument and that makes me feel pretty damned good. I also learned how to counter a number of arguments that you posited.

    The game began on my terms when I attacked dmg and co.'s assertion that a band should change its name, and then ended on my terms when you stormed off in disgust. BAI BAI.


    Who are you trying to convince? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 03:31:11 AM PST
    Are you sure you've learned? I don't really see that much improvement. Perhaps you need to retake the course. No doubt you will next time someone mentions gun control.


     
    Listen, uh... (none / 0) (#53)
    by elenchos on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 06:52:00 PM PST
    I'm sure you're posts are very, very "+5 insightful" and all that, but if you can't even figure out how to make a link to whatever it is that you think is going to be so enlightening for me, then I'm going to make the bold leap of logic that sifting through your comment history and searching out "the post that threads down about 15 deep" (do I take a left at the hog farm, Cletus, or just put it in 4-wheel and go straight on through the Civil War cemetary?) is probably not going to be so rich in wisdom that I'll not regret wasting my time.

    Thank you for not DoSing the Adequacy.


    I do, I do, I do
    --Bikini Kill


    Heh (none / 0) (#64)
    by bc on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 09:11:02 AM PST
    Thank you for not DoSing the Adequacy.

    Actually, we got dossed a bit yesterday, but thanks to our wonderful new hostess we sorted it out in no time.

    We aren't sure who to blame yet, but some Mandrake loving Anthrax fan seems likely.


    ♥, bc.

    But that just isn't possible! (none / 0) (#65)
    by elenchos on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 09:24:56 AM PST
    I've asked dozens, even hundreds, of people NOT to DoS the Adequacy, and I've proven it works. Well, we are at least sure that it works on whomever I ask, so that rules out Hunsvotti as a suspect in this incident. That only leaves anyone who I haven't asked.

    I know! Make sure no one who uses the site can get away without being asked not to launch a DoS attack. You don't want to have to tediously type up hundreds of messages for all those users, of course, so you want to automate it. You could just set up an automatic reply to every machine that makes any request to the Adequacy server that says "Thank you for not DoSing the Adequacy." Really, you would want to make it some kind of repeating beacon. So anyone surfs the site, posts a comment, whatever, and bam! hundreds, millions of requests not to DoS the site come right back at them. Who could ignore hundreds of polite requests (NB Thank you for not...)?

    OT: I heard the US moratorium on Internet Taxation expires Monday. Is someone going to come out strongly in favor of taxing the net? I have some ideas: there should be an excise on packets, and a federal tax on monthly ISP charges. Also something on servers, and individual web pages should pay per-hit. There is a war on, you know.


    I do, I do, I do
    --Bikini Kill


    You overlook the central issue (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by T Reginald Gibbons on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 09:29:31 AM PST
    Where should the internet taxes go? I say they should go towards funding an internet police force, like CERT, only with real power. It's time we cleaned up this den of thieves, pronographers and terrorists.


    Oh Jesus (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by T Reginald Gibbons on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 09:30:46 AM PST
    "pronographers". I used the l33t spelling. I hate myself.


    h3h3 (none / 0) (#100)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Dec 6th, 2001 at 01:40:12 AM PST
    y0u s@1d l337...


     
    commin home (none / 0) (#101)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Dec 9th, 2001 at 02:05:07 PM PST
    I wish I knew where you lived so I could get you....



     
    yes (none / 0) (#13)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 09:05:03 PM PST
    Robert Frost said "Give me Liberty or Give me Death". John F. Kennedy said "I am not a crook". Caesar Chavez said "It depends on what your definition of the word 'is' is". George W. Bush said "goat?"

    I rest my case.


     
    I would like to offer my opinion. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 10:12:04 PM PST
    Sir. You are correct that a new constitution is needed to replace the sexist, racist, sizeist, ageist, carnivorocentric, homophobic, logocentric, phallically-overcompensating, scatophobic, blindist, deafist document that, despite it's offensiveness to decent, rational, caring environmentalists, labor activists, necrophiles, and persons who choose to engage in uncoerced, mutually fulfulling sexual relationships with large mammals, is currently enshrined as the sacred founding document of our nation.

    I think that assembling a database based on polling every member of society (including, IMHO, children, incarcerated persons, the so-called "insane", the so-called "retarded", the so-called "victims of Alzheimers-related dementia", and the so-called "comatose") would be the perfect way to create a core governing document for our society. However, I think that if we were to hand over the results "to a team of constitutional lawyers who could then draft a new constitution for us", we would be making the same terrible mistake as the "original" "founders".

    Instead, a sophisticated computer program (I favor a nice tidy Perl script myself) would be used to develop the laws of the nation directly from the information in the database. Periodically (once a year, say), new opinion polls would be sent out, and new laws developed from the updated database. We would thus have a society whose self-updating legal system efficiently mirrors the hearts and minds of its constituent citizenry. Eventually, as other countries see how just and benevolent our government had become, they too could be included in the system, until, like a tree growing outward to offer its life-giving fruit for the nourishment of all, the opinion poll-based legal system will extend to link all humankind in peace and justice (and Perl).


    Don't forget to GPL it! (3.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Richard C Suquer on Thu Oct 18th, 2001 at 03:55:42 PM PST
    You're absolutely right of course. The minorities of this nation need to work together to write a new constitution. Preferably one that prevents capitalist pigs from taking over the country.

    One thing I'd like to add, however, is that your computer program should be GPLed. The working men and womyn of the world have learned that Commercial Software is immoral, and so they would not approve of the constitution software unless it is licensed under the GPL.

    So here are the steps I'd like to take to create the Constitution.pl program:
    • Register the project on Sourceforge
    • Do some preliminary development (version 0.0.1)
    • Post it on Freshmeat.net
    • "A million eyes make all bugs shallow"
    • Allow members of the Community to submit patches and to change the program in whatever way they see fit (the "bazaar" model)
    • Make a GTK widget for Constitution.pl. And maybe a Gnome Panel applet.
    • Integrate it into Gnutella to allow MP3s and bukakke movies to be downloaded with it.
    Constitution.pl will soon be the Linux of Constitutions!

    --
    Revolution from Below! GPL the Constitution!

     
    I think... (none / 0) (#18)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 18th, 2001 at 05:26:14 AM PST
    the writer, and this entire site, is the most hilarious endeavour on the web I have seen in a long time,

    Never before has so much shit, been spewed forth by so few


    *I* think... (none / 0) (#21)
    by tkatchev on Thu Oct 18th, 2001 at 08:47:58 AM PST
    ...that the article must have really struck a chord with you. Keep up reading this site, and God knows you might learn something.


    --
    Peace and much love...




    you dont think (none / 0) (#22)
    by clays on Thu Oct 18th, 2001 at 02:55:48 PM PST
    what god knows is none of your concern


    Please elaborate. (none / 0) (#27)
    by tkatchev on Thu Oct 18th, 2001 at 09:21:22 PM PST
    Please post some more commentary; unless you can discuss these issues in a responsible and adult manner, I'm going to have to assume that you are a troll. In which case I'll have to delete your posts.


    --
    Peace and much love...




    subject (none / 0) (#37)
    by clays on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 06:27:04 AM PST
    the first page of adequacy has cartoons having sex, a beatnik, a skull and crossbones, what appears to be a stolen, copyrighted image of hal, and a picture that would make uncle tom call the naacp. yet a photo of my eyes brings attention to me.

    one of the things i didnt notice people mention: you may just have the option of leaving this country, im not positive on this. i understand that your ancestors were short sited when they decided to come here. there is, however, a 7% chance you might not be prosecuted for escaping the US. but dont hold me liable if you are shot in the back for running to mexico. not every nation can be the cambodia of the west.


    "what god knows is none of your concern"

    you thinking you can know what god knows, thinks, or feels is evil. i dont even know what my dog is thinking about. whatever makes you believe you can realise all the knowledge of god is a flaw. i dont claim to know someones stance on every issue after i've read their biography as written by biased persons.

    "This "clay" persona is a known troll."

    i am truly sorry my "persona" seems to correspond with the shortened version of my "name."


    Are you stupid or what? (none / 0) (#41)
    by tkatchev on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 09:16:10 AM PST
    I don't live in the U.S. In fact, the only way you'll get me to live in the U.S. is if you drag me there by force, clad in irons. Though I still might fight back -- at least you wouldn't be able to stop me from biting you. (Unless you also go to the trouble of gagging me in the process.)

    The U.S. is a totalitarian empire; it might be affluent, but morally and spiritually it is a wasteland, Frankenstein's monstrosity.


    --
    Peace and much love...




    elaborate please (none / 0) (#47)
    by frosty on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 12:45:52 PM PST
    The U.S. is a totalitarian empire; it might be affluent, but morally and spiritually it is a wasteland, Frankenstein's monstrosity.

    Could you please elaborate a little bit on this idea that the US is "totalitarian". Do you mean overly imperialistic? I may be grossly mis-informed, but I do not feel like I live in a totalitarian state, unless my definition of that word is radically different than yours. Also, what (if any) other contries are not (in the aggregate) morally and spiritually deprived??


    "Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger" -J.R.R. Tolkien

    Why, of course. (none / 0) (#56)
    by tkatchev on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 01:28:48 AM PST
    Of course you don't realize that the U.S. is totalitarian, since you never lived in any other country! You're not even qualified to make a judgement, since you have no way of comparing.

    The U.S. is a totalitarian society (not government, there is a difference) because it tries to control the minds of people living there. There is a tremendous psychological press to fit into the groupthink. I think you've felt it yourself -- only you probably think that the feeling is something that's part of every human society. Well, guess what: it's not! In other societies, you're allowed to be a jackass if you want to. People may not like you, but they won't try to persecute for it.

    P.S. All countries are morally and spiritually deprived. But, unlike the U.S., they don't have any messianic ideas about "saving" the world.


    --
    Peace and much love...




    idiot again (0.00 / 1) (#60)
    by clays on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 04:48:49 AM PST
    you know as much about the states as dmg knows about anthrax. i actually know people who moved here from ukraine. they were persecuted for being different. i dont know anyone who moved from the usa to the cccp for this reason.


     
    USA totalitarian (none / 0) (#71)
    by Canadian Right on Sun Oct 21st, 2001 at 10:14:55 PM PST
    The USA is quickly turning into a Nation that puts large corporations and their profits before the common people. Large corporations can afford to buy laws. Just ask those fine people at Chiquita who started a trade war over bananas, or Disney that got copyrights extended just in time to keep Mickey Mouse out of the public domain. The war on drugs is an affront to personal freedon. The usa government wants to make computer hackers, you know those harmless people who muck about with unsecured servers, equivelant to terrorists!!! The USA government, at the well paid urging of RIAA (cabal of record labels that want to squeeze more money from their music)to pass a law making it mandatory for ALL digital devices to have hardware built in to prevent copying copyrighted material. The USA has already made it illegal to circumvent copyright controls. If you legally buy a copyrighted work, but want to listen, watch, or read it on non-sanctioned hardware, you could go to jail for copying what you legally own. The freedom loving USA has already arrested a programmer who dared point how how lame the security controls were on Adobe's products, a Universty Prof was muzzled by this same law (he's trying to sue), and the USA pressured Dennmark into arresting a 16 year old kid who worked on a program to play DVD's on computers not sanctioned by the RIAA.

    And of course, to protect freedom, you'll have give up a lot of your freedom after Sept 11.
    Anarchists never Rule

     
    One Word: Japan (none / 0) (#98)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 25th, 2001 at 01:39:33 PM PST
    "The U.S. is a totalitarian society (not government, there is a difference) because it tries to control the minds of people living there. There is a tremendous psychological press to fit into the groupthink. I think you've felt it yourself -- only you probably think that the feeling is something that's part of every human society. Well, guess what: it's not! In other societies, you're allowed to be a jackass if you want to. People may not like you, but they won't try to persecute for it."

    Tell me how Japan is better than the US in this respect.


     
    d (none / 0) (#51)
    by clays on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 02:52:26 PM PST
    this is obviously a shocking revelation to you, but its not my goal in life to force people who hate the united states to live here. i am more of the "get the fuck out" type than the "please come and degrade my society with your ignorance" type


    I repeat: (none / 0) (#57)
    by tkatchev on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 01:30:27 AM PST
    I do not live in the U.S. I hate your country, OK? Why should I live in a place I hate?


    --
    Peace and much love...




    idiot (0.00 / 1) (#59)
    by clays on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 04:38:58 AM PST
    you obviously didnt read, or understand, what i said.


     
    A few mistakes in the article (none / 0) (#19)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 18th, 2001 at 08:28:18 AM PST
    <<Here we could learn a lot from our cousins across the pond. They recently outlawed handguns completely, and have experienced a spectacular fall in the number of crimes committed with legally held handguns.>>

    Yes but the criminial don't exact register guns no w do they? I am all for restricting the TYPE of guns people can obtain. Hunting rifle, hand guns, maybe even a shotgun. However, I do not believe that people NEED bazookas. I am aslo in favor of the fact that many states hold parents responsible for the children's actions. "Hey why wasn't the gun hdden and SECURED?"

    <<Seventh Amendment: In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.>>

    This guranteeing a persons rights to a trial by jury. It means that at no time can a court deny this. Many times jurors have found people to be innocent then new evidence finds the killer was someone else. I know that if I were wrongly accused I would not want this right taken away. It also states that if a jury finds you guilty you cannot recommend an appeal unless your right acording to the Constitution were denied. Such as if a judge refuses to permit evidence that would have proven you innocent. The twenty dollars has also been re-evaluated and inflation does play a role. So it's really no longer $20.

    The reasonn we don't call for a major overhaul is that it requires such a LARGE vote to even ammend a single portion if the document. Also we would have to be guarenteed that the Bill of Rights remain in tact. The are the life-blood of the Constitution. Amendments which grants citizens of the US their God given rights, and all subsuquent amendments must adhere to these guidlines.


     
    Better idea (none / 0) (#33)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 05:30:29 AM PST
    I'm partial to the Articles of the Confederation myself. Seriously.

    I believe that you have a right to make hate speech--laws can't force respect, and when you try to force someone to get along with people he doesn't want to get along with, you're asking for trouble. It's better to let them remain separate, and let people say what they wish about others as long as they don't go causing direct physical harm.


    that makes little consistent sense (none / 0) (#40)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 08:48:01 AM PST
    I believe that you have a right to make hate speech--laws can't force respect,

    Similiarly, murder is a Right. Hate speech is a crime and hate speech laws punish that crime. Respect for victims isnt a consideration in punishing crime.


    no, .... (none / 0) (#43)
    by frosty on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 11:48:11 AM PST
    Respect for victims isnt a consideration in punishing crime.

    Respect for victims is a massive consideration in most crimes. "hate crimes" are much more severely procecuted, and the punishments are much tougher than for non-hate crimes. Now unless you want to claim that hating and respectfully hating are two different things, this is a good example of respect for the victims of your crime having a considerable impact on punishment.


    "Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger" -J.R.R. Tolkien

    no (none / 0) (#45)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 12:30:04 PM PST
    "hate crimes" are much more severely procecuted, and the punishments are much tougher than for non-hate crimes.

    You are referring to penalty enhanced sentencing which punish motive. Obviously if motive is punished, the root comment is proven incorrect.


    incidentally (none / 0) (#48)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 01:01:34 PM PST
    Not all states have enacted anti defamation laws with provisions for enhanced, motive based sentencing precisely because punishing motive is still a very novel development in American jurisprudence. Nevertheless, R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul and Wisconsin v. Mitchell have decided the Constitutionality of such legislation is acceptable under the very First Amendment under discussion. It may be small first step towards parity with UN FoS model legislation, but it is a step which would have been inconceivable 50 years ago.


    No more UN! (none / 0) (#73)
    by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 03:47:59 PM PST
    Of course, it's high time for the US to get itself out of the UN.


    I'd go one further with that useful logic. (none / 0) (#74)
    by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 04:31:46 PM PST
    It's time the US left the planet. I dont think anyone seriously denies the planet would be better off for its departure.


     
    You defeat your own argument... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 05:30:35 AM PST
    It is precisely because of the Constitution that you are even able to post this document, so I find it quite interesting that you, who obviously have no concept of just how important the rights it grants really are, would be so against it. Allow me to elaborate.

    As concerns the First Amendment: Surely, we can agree that all people must be held equal before the law. But then, too, must all human thought be held equal before the law, because it is our capacity for thought which makes us human. Therefore, all human expression of thought, including speech, must be held equal, for is it by expression that thoughts propagate.

    Or, to put it another way, all ideas have a fundamental right to exist. Even those as reprehensible as racism. Racism in and of itself hurts no one, despicable as it might be. Racial violence certainly does hurt people, but this is already a crime, and thus there is no need for new laws about it. But the most important reason that all speech must be protected is this: no human knows the truth. We've all got it wrong, and yes, I do include myself in this. Everyone has a different viewpoint, because we're all individuals, and is is somewhere in between those viewpoints that the truth is found. So when you start restricting human thought, as you would do, you permanently cripple humanity's ability to accurately ascertain truth. Could anything be more criminal against humanity than that, to strangle the human mind? Just because you don't like something is not a license to destroy it.

    The Second Amendment: Perhaps the most poorly-worded amendment in the Constitution, but one of the most important. People seem to think that "regulated" means "organized." This is not so. If you look in dictionaries from then and now, you find that to "regulate" something is to hold it in control, to check its power to keep it from becoming too weak or too strong. This is the final check and balance in the system: the ability to revolt, should the government go corrupt. Of course, even this is checked: revolution is treason, so if you want to revolt, you'd better be able to win so you can pardon yourself, or you're screwed. And further, with the modern military, you have to have absolutely overwhelming popular support in order to have even the slimmest chance of winning. A good balance, I think.

    Also notable: in every single state that has passed a law allowing for concealed-weapons permits, violent crime has gone down, not up. Just another point for the plain and simple fact that an inanimate object does not cause violence, the person wielding it does. People are responsible for their own actions.

    And finally, the Seventh Amendment: Sure, trial by jury isn't that economical. That doesn't matter, because it is the only fair way to carry out a trial. Why? Because it is the people's check on the judiciary. Think about this. A judge is bound to uphold the law. This is in the job description. They can only act counter to the law when said law is unconstitutional. But a jury is under no such obligation. Even if a person has broken a law, a jury can refuse to convict if they find the law to be unfair. All of you living in Florida should be grateful for this, because if you've ever taken a bath indoors, you've committed a crime. But of course, no jury would convict you for it. A judge, though, would have to. It's their job.

    Study the Constitution. Think about how it applies to you. And for crying out loud, stop taking your rights for granted. The document was meant to be timeless, and this is for a good reason. Most people don't know enough to run a country; you don't, and neither do I. This is why most politicians started out as lawyers, to get the training they need to understand such things as laws and rights. My own understanding is rudimentary, but I realize why they're important, both for me and for those I oppose, like you.

    So keep on speaking. You're utterly wrong, but you have the right to speak. A shame you don't seem to realize that you threaten your own rights to do so, and should you have your way, might find yourself to be your own worst adversary.


    The fundamental flaw with moral relativism. (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 05:46:31 AM PST
    "no human knows the truth"

    Is that true?

    If it's true, then it's proven itself false.
    If it's false, it's false.

    Either way, it's false.


    That isn't moral relativism (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 06:24:23 AM PST
    I'm sorry, but it just isn't. Moral relativism is based in the idea that morality is a product of the culture that it is part of, and as such, cannot be properly judged by outside cultures, since they respond to their own cultural morality.

    Apart from that, your argument doesn't make any sense. "No human knows the truth about morality." Disprove.


    Gladly. (none / 0) (#49)
    by Craig McPherson on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 01:40:21 PM PST
    "Apart from that, your argument doesn't make any sense. 'No human knows the truth about morality.' Disprove."

    I'd be happy to.

    1. Assume that no human knows the truth about morality.

    2. "No human knows the truth about morality" concerns morality.

    3. Since we accepted "no human knows the truth about morality" as true, and it concerns morality, "no human knows the truth about morality" is therefore the truth about morality.

    4. Therefore, because "no human knows the truth about morality" is the truth about morality, no human knows "no human knows the truth about morality."

    5. To have accepted "no human knows the truth about morality" in step #1, it was neccessary to know "no human knows the truth about morality."

    6. We have reached a contradiction. According to #4, no human knows "no human knows the truth about morality," but in step #5, a human must know "no human knows the truth about morality."

    7. Because the accepted premise in step #1 led to a logical contradiction, the premise must be rejected.

    8. Therefore, "no human knows the truth about morality" is proven false.

    Q E D, bitch.


    --
    If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy.

    riiiight (none / 0) (#50)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 01:54:56 PM PST
    2. "No human knows the truth about morality" concerns morality.

    It concerns "knows".


     
    By your reasoning,,, (none / 0) (#52)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 04:48:31 PM PST
    ...I can show that there is a human somewhere who knows the location of the Atlantis, and the Loch Ness Monster.


    By my reasoning. (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Craig McPherson on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 10:08:43 PM PST
    No, no you can't.

    Moral relativism has ALREADY been disproven as logically flawed DECADES ago, so I really wish you Liberals would stop dredging it up to support your paedophilia, or molestation of children, your smoking of pot, or whatever Liberal cause you're defending this week.

    LIBERAL: Wow, look at the supple buttocks of that 6-year-old child! I think I'll rape that child. Oh BOY, nothing warms my Liberal blood like a little childrape in the morning!

    CHILD: Oh NO, a Liberal! My teacher warned me about Liberals -- he may try to rape me! Help! HELP!!

    LIBERAL: Ha ha ha! There's no escape!

    *Liberal rapes child, kills child, rapes child again*

    SOCIETY: We're going to have to criticize you for what you did, and possibly even punish you.

    LIBERAL: But we live in a morally ambiguous universe. Isn't it arrogant for you to believe that things like "rape" and "murder" are wrong? It would be wrong to criticize me because it's impossible to say what's right and wrong in this morally relativistic world.

    SOCIETY: So are you saying that rape and murder AREN'T wrong?

    LIBERAL: We human beings are just one thread in a vast tapestry woven by Holy Earth Mother Gaia. To label rape and murder as "wrong" is to claim superiority to Holy Earth Mother Gaia! We humans don't know the truth about morality!

    SOCIETY: Okay, fine. So how about, for the next ten minutes, we pretend that rape and murder AREN'T wrong?

    LIBERAL: Err-- okay, I suppose.

    *Society rapes Liberal*

    LIBERAL: Ouch! My delicate Liberal anus! Stop!

    SOCIETY: We're doing nothing wrong, remember?

    LIBERAL: I may have changed my mind about this--

    *Society murders Liberal*

    LIBERAL: ...death........

    SOCIETY: WOW, he was RIGHT! I don't feel guilty at ALL!

    *Society digs a whole in "Holy Earth Mother Gaia" (also known as "the dirt") and dumps the bloodied corpse of Liberal into it.*

    SOCIETY: I wonder what's on television tonight.

    And that's why I hate Liberals.

    QED.


    --
    If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy.

    I thought you were a libertarian (none / 0) (#55)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 10:44:25 PM PST
    Don't libertarians believe that everyone has a right to choose their own morality, as long as it agrees with libertarian beliefs about swinging fists and not hitting faces? I'm sure some nutter on kuro5hin told me that once.


    You're seriously misguided. (none / 0) (#58)
    by Craig McPherson on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 02:32:34 AM PST
    Yes, I'm a Libertarian (although I'm thinking about quitting because the party sends me so much junk mail), but Libertarians do NOT believe that rape and child molestation are acceptable. Rape violates the rights of the victim, and child molestation violates the rights of the child (or, you could argue, the rights of the parents who own the child), and thus are un-Libertarian ideals.

    People who support rape and child molestation are known as Liberals.


    --
    If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy.

    Rape is just a matter of degree (none / 0) (#61)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 05:29:24 AM PST
    As is paedophilia. Think about it. A paedophile is much worse if molests 5 year olds than if he molests ten year olds. Society can't even agree on what the correct age for consent is. Paedophilia is one area in which societies view is resoundingly liberal and permissive.

    In liberal societies, such as Australia, which is governed by the liberal party, rape charges are all but impossible to prosecute successfully. Right or wrong, liberal moral relativists are the dominant societal paradigm here at the end of history.


    All right, fair enough. (none / 0) (#63)
    by Craig McPherson on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 07:26:14 AM PST
    So if I come to your house and rape you tomorrow, you won't have a problem with it? Since I don't generally go for men, if you have any cute daughters, sisters, girlfriends, or wives, shall I rape them also? Oh, and do you have any pets?

    Please provide directions to your house so that I can have my morally relativistic way with your family.


    --
    If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy.

    That wouldn't be rape (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 04:48:20 PM PST
    If I let you have sex with me, it's not rape, silly. If I let you have sex with my family, it's prostitution, not rape. Once again, my indomitable liberal logic has penetrated your libertarian bluster with ease and panache.


     
    that's not actually the flaw in moral relativism (none / 0) (#70)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 21st, 2001 at 05:37:55 PM PST
    People can say things that are true, and yet not know that they are absolute truth. People can hold correct opinion. It is his opinion that "no human knows the truth." He doesn't claim to know that as absolute truth. Therefore, even if it is true, it doesn't disprove itself.


     
    Once again, the gun lobby fails statistics (none / 0) (#39)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 06:38:22 AM PST
    During the time in which concealed handguns allegedly caused a drop in crime in the states which had passed concealed carry laws, a nationwide drop in crime took place. Crime actually dropped faster in states with strict laws regarding concealed weapons. Statistics demonstrated that concealed weapons actually reduced the rate by which crime dropped.

    I now prompt you to:

    a. Call me a liar and demand sources
    b. Do the gun-lobby-about-face and tell me that gun laws do not have such a marked impact on crime rates, because crime responds to a number of factors, including police funding, blah, blah, blah.

    Or you could just concede that gun lobbyists have once again manipulated statistics for the purposes of propaganda.


    okay ... (none / 0) (#72)
    by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 01:53:59 PM PST
    I'd like to see your sources. I'd also like to point out that those who favor fewer restrictions on owning and carrying of weapons are not automatically 'the gun lobby'.

    Neither is John Lott, the University of Chicago professor whose statistical analysis is probably the one to which you refer.

    When discussing manipulated statistics, though, you can't go much farther than the anti-gun rights groups. HCI's campaign against guns, ostensibly to protect children against death by gun accident, didn't have scary enough numbers. So HCI expanded the definition of 'children' to 'under 25 years old' and expanded the definition of 'gun accident' to include 'children' shot by police while committing crimes.





     
    yo, bubba skeeter (none / 0) (#42)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 11:39:27 AM PST
    The Second Amendment: Perhaps the most poorly-worded amendment in the Constitution, but one of the most important.

    No, it's the least important, most settled Amendment in the entire Constitution; it simply isnt a legal issue except to idiots and nra types. Under law, the 2nd guarantees the contemporary existence of state militias, nothing more and nothing less.

    People seem to think that "regulated" means "organized." This is not so. If you look in dictionaries from then and now, you find that to "regulate" something is to hold it in control, to check its power to keep it from becoming too weak or too strong. This is the final check and balance in the system: the ability to revolt, should the government go corrupt.

    Dude, it's "well regulated militia". Militias are under government control. Your retarded word game holds out the fantastic hope that government is Constitutionally mandated to revolt against itself using instruments under its own control. Is there not one intelligent gun lobbiest amongst you?


    Oh, brother... (none / 0) (#44)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 12:29:45 PM PST
    Dude, it's "well regulated militia". Militias are under government control.

    Yes, that is correct.

    Your retarded word game holds out the fantastic hope that government is Constitutionally mandated to revolt against itself using instruments under its own control.

    ...and here, you miss the point entirely. That is not what I said. I said that, via their ability to protect themselves, the people themselves hold the military under control. THe military has to think twice about becoming oppressive, because if the people are armed, they can actually *gasp* fight back. That's what holding the militia under control means. Our government is a system of checks and balances. But not all of the checks can come from within the government. In ways such at this, the people and the government check each other. It's a question of who watches the watchmen.

    Is there not one intelligent gun lobbiest amongst you?

    I should hope so. Although your misspelling of "lobbyist" doesn't speak too highly of your own intelligence.


    keep dreaming (none / 0) (#46)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 12:35:50 PM PST
    That is not what I said. I said that, via their ability to protect themselves, the people themselves hold the military under control.

    Not if the 2nd is a Constitutional militia right, you doofus, which it most certainly is in the opinion of every appellate court since 1776. Can you do me a favor? Stop dreaming shit up and substantiate your gun fantasies with court opinion.

    Good luck.


    OK, look... (none / 0) (#75)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 05:17:43 AM PST
    I don't own a gun. I don't even want a gun. I have other means of protecting myself and those I love. I don't think we need fully-automatic weapons on the streets.

    However, those means I spoke of require a massive expenditure of time, money, and energy, the combination of which most people lack. For them, there needs to be an effective means of self-defense. Not just against rogue law enforcement or other governmental corruption, but from common criminals or -dare I use the word- terrorists. How would you protect them?


    You call yourself American? Bah! (none / 0) (#76)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 05:40:23 AM PST
    How would you protect them?

    The Constitution is their protection, not their gun. That would have been the damn point for writing it and for instituting a liberal democracy where people without guns can tell people with guns where to stick them. If that liberal democracy breaks down, what the fuck good is a gun? Did the soviet empire collapse because people had a *civil right* to a pea shooters?

    Get real; Americans are simply paranoid of the very institutions which make them toxic with patriotism.


    You really believe this, don't you? (none / 0) (#79)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 08:43:47 AM PST
    The Constitution is their protection, not their gun.

    So a piece of paper stops a bullet, huh? That's news to me. I told you already, this isn't just about protection from rogue law enforcement, although that's certainly an important aspect of it. A mugger isn't going to be swayed when you whip out a copy of the Constitution. Not even when you roll it up and start smacking him with it. Even a few paper cuts isn't going to stop him, in fact, it'll probably just make him madder.

    That would have been the damn point for writing it and for instituting a liberal democracy where people without guns can tell people with guns where to stick them.

    ...and then the people with guns shoot them. How can you not see this incredibly simple point?

    If that liberal democracy breaks down, what the fuck good is a gun? If that "liberal" democracy (noting that democracies are not inherently liberal or conservative) breaks down, then there is no law -at least temporarily- and that gun becomes pretty darned important if you don't want to get killed, raped, robbed, or whatever, at least until law is re-established.

    Did the soviet empire collapse because people had a *civil right* to a pea shooters?

    No, but you'll notice the coup that precipitated its collapse was carried out by the military. People with guns.

    Get real; Americans are simply paranoid of the very institutions which make them toxic with patriotism.

    Oh, so you mean we don't blindly trust our government?

    I will take that as a compliment.


    of course i believe it, I *live* in it (none / 0) (#80)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 02:13:20 PM PST
    A mugger isn't going to be swayed when you whip out a copy of the Constitution.

    I dont care, guns arent defensive weapons. More people shoot themselves by accident than they do their attackers in self-defense. I know a thing or two about violent situations and I can tell you such situations rarely unfold or present themselves like they do in the movies. In fact, people whose confidence depends on their gun are the very easiest people to mop the floor with.

    ...and then the people with guns shoot them. How can you not see this incredibly simple point?

    Er, because I live in civilized society? Look, your entire line of reasoning can be summed up like this: I distrust my community and prefer to live in a state of siege.

    Bully for you. Have a nice life polishing your peashooter.

    No, but you'll notice the coup that precipitated its collapse was carried out by the military. People with guns.

    Well, connect the dots. The US also has a military composed of people who might be your mother, your father, your brother, your sister, and your next door neighbors. Furthermore, why do you believe US society consists of a monolithic "leadership" whose tyrannical rule will be unquestioned if and when the shit hits the fan? Why evidence do you have that well armed private "militias" arent the greater danger? Historically, they are; nothing good has ever come from a citizenry convinced of the false certainty of their "oppression" by what we historically refer to as scapegoats.

    You appear to favor cartoon fantasies of the nature of governance and its revolt that simply arent corroborated in history.


    Not again... (none / 0) (#82)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 07:48:33 PM PST
    I dont care, guns arent defensive weapons.

    Then what is? Are not all weapons meant to be used in self-defense?

    More people shoot themselves by accident than they do their attackers in self-defense.

    Irrelevant; guns are certainly not made to cause accidents. Some people are stupid, and don't store their guns properly; they bring those accidents upon themselves. It's a greater shame when a third party is involved, of course, but the one at fault is the one who stored it improperly, not the gun itself. A gun is a tool, no more, no less. It is how it is used that makes all the difference.

    A question, though: do you think people have a right to endanger themselves, if they so choose? Perhaps, say, via abusing drugs? If not, you're a hypocrite if the only reason you'd ban guns is to prevent gun accidents.

    I know a thing or two about violent situations and I can tell you such situations rarely unfold or present themselves like they do in the movies. In fact, people whose confidence depends on their gun are the very easiest people to mop the floor with.

    True, true. Trust me, I know more than my share about violent situations myself. But at the same time, you're speaking of a mental state now, rather than a physical circumstance. Please try to stay on topic.

    ...and then the people with guns shoot them. How can you not see this incredibly simple point?

    Er, because I live in civilized society?

    By whose definition?

    Look, your entire line of reasoning can be summed up like this: I distrust my community and prefer to live in a state of siege.

    No. That's not it at all. I'm not naive enough to think that all the people in the world are good, kind people, and so I prefer to live on a level playing field so that should I run up against one, I am prepared.

    Bully for you. Have a nice life polishing your peashooter.

    I already told you; I neither own nor want to own a gun. I have my own ways of protecting myself and those I love. But as I also told you, those means are not commonly available to most. For those who cannot get them, another viable means of self-defense is needed. Ergo, my belief that the Second Amendment is important.

    No, but you'll notice the coup that precipitated its collapse was carried out by the military. People with guns.

    Well, connect the dots. The US also has a military composed of people who might be your mother, your father, your brother, your sister, and your next door neighbors.

    You're correct in some of those cases. But I can also say that the military is also composed of a huge number of people who are not my mother, father, brother, sister, or next door neighbors.

    Furthermore, why do you believe US society consists of a monolithic "leadership" whose tyrannical rule will be unquestioned if and when the shit hits the fan?

    It is true that the leadership is not ordinary monolithic. But certainly, given the right circumstances, it can be manipulated to act as such. Consider the September 11 attacks as the perfect example.

    Why evidence do you have that well armed private "militias" arent the greater danger?

    I have none. And certainly, private "militias" can be dangerous. Just look at what one of them did to a certain building in Oklahoma City for proof of that. But I never advocated militia groups, now did I?

    Historically, they are; nothing good has ever come from a citizenry convinced of the false certainty of their "oppression" by what we historically refer to as scapegoats.

    Well, let's see... what about the United States government itself? Was it not founded in just such a manner?

    Well, to be more accurate, I'd suppose I'd have to say it was the original Articles of Confederation that was drafted by that group (though the Framers shared many members with them). But I think you see my point here. The US was founded by people who were able to rise up against a corrupt government when the need arose.

    You know, come to think of it, the same is true for the French government. And if you want to go back really far, the English government as we know it isn't all that different.

    You appear to favor cartoon fantasies of the nature of governance and its revolt that simply arent corroborated in history. Even if I am, you're the same as me. Granted, I may be watching Power Rangers while you're watching Care Bears, but your naivete is every bit as screwed up as my paranoia.

    I am not trying to advocate that my way is the way things ought to be. It would be a wonderful thing if your perfect world existed where everyone was happy all the time and no one ever wanted to hurt anyone else. But that world does not exist. This is reality I'm talking about. The day you can convince everyone else in the entire world, including all governments, corporations, and extragovernmental organizations, to disarm completely and destroy all plans to any weapon that was ever made, then I will retract everything i've said here. Until then, it's not safe to do so.


    history calling (none / 0) (#84)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 08:17:23 PM PST
    Well, let's see... what about the United States government itself? Was it not founded in just such a manner?

    Well, no it was not. Private weapons were both extremely rare and ineffectual, and citizen militias were cited as a frequent embarrassment in Gen. Washington's writing. Make no mistake that colonial *armies* won the revolution, not Biff, Spike and their pals in Budweiswer bowling shirts.

    The US was founded by people who were able to rise up against a corrupt government when the need arose.

    The staggering, overwhelming mass of people in whose name *every* single revolution in history was fought was singularly unarmed with anything other than pointy sticks. In particular, guns in Colonial America were such pieces of shit, a government decision was taken to sell them to Indians in order to mitigate the more dangerous bow and arrow.

    No 2nd Amendment protects you now or protected anyone in the history of Mankind from tyranny. Finally, you continue to resist the almost axiomatic quality of the proposition at the root of this discussion: civil society and the original American civil society in particular never, never, never assigned any civil rights to an artifact of metallurgy capable of inaccurately spitting out a projectile at several hundred feet per second.

    We already know that weapons exist and will be useful in a revolt whether some of us own them now or will buy them surreptitiously for the purpose of arming the very few people whose names will pollute future folk tunes with their owners' mythical courage. I'm pleased to agree with all that and more. Now, what argument do you have that the 2nd is a personal Constitutional Right to arm oneself against a tyrannical taxman?


    You're actually bringing that book up? (none / 0) (#87)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 05:18:48 AM PST
    Well, no it was not . Private weapons were both extremely rare and ineffectual, and citizen militias were cited as a frequent embarrassment in Gen. Washington's writing. Make no mistake that colonial *armies* won the revolution, not Biff, Spike and their pals in Budweiswer bowling shirts.

    You do know that the book you're referencing has been thoroughly and soundly debunked by just about every historian out there except for the one person who claims to have "found" this evidence?

    In particular, guns in Colonial America were such pieces of shit, a government decision was taken to sell them to Indians in order to mitigate the more dangerous bow and arrow.

    Listen to yourself! That has to take it for one of the most absurd statements made by revisionists yet. And yet you're buying into it. You seem to be a smart enough person. And yet you've taken a single book written by a single man who's known to have fabricated most of the evidence cited. It is true that guns at the time were less technologically advanced than they are now. But so was almost everything else. Some 230 years of technological advancement has taken place since then.

    No 2nd Amendment protects you now or protected anyone in the history of Mankind from tyranny.

    Well, seeing as there's only been one, and it hasn't yet had to be put to the test, I fail to see how that statement is anything but premature.

    Finally, you continue to resist the almost axiomatic quality of the proposition at the root of this discussion: civil society and the original American civil society in particular never, never, never assigned any civil rights to an artifact of metallurgy capable of inaccurately spitting out a projectile at several hundred feet per second.

    Of course not. That would be ridiculous. They did, however, assign rights to people. Including the right "to keep and bear arms."

    Now, what argument do you have that the 2nd is a personal Constitutional Right to arm oneself against a tyrannical taxman?

    Have you been reading anything I've said in this thread?

    And please stop with the redneck stereotypes. Not everyone who's concerned about the right to defend one's own freedom, should the need arise, is like that.


    bye (none / 0) (#90)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 05:43:51 AM PST
    You do know that the book you're referencing has been thoroughly and soundly debunked by just about every historian out there except for the one person who claims to have "found" this evidence?

    No, I dont know that because it isnt true and becaue you havent cited any scholarly references. That book has been roundly praised by historians and has received historical awards based on the merits of its research. I hope you're not referring to the usual contentious gun goonery sites on the internet who also refute case law by ignoring it completely.

    They did, however, assign rights to people. Including the right "to keep and bear arms."

    You keep repeating this assertion like a broken record. Please cite ONE fucking case ending on appeal to support this constitutional solecism of yours. I dont care about anything else you have to say about defense, protection, revolution, this, that any other thing.

    JUST ONE.

    Have you been reading anything I've said in this thread?

    JUST ONE.

    Have you been reading anything I've said in this thread?

    JUST ONE.


    You're breaking down, you know... (none / 0) (#95)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 10:36:57 AM PST
    No, I dont know that because it isnt true...

    Circular logic.

    ...and becaue you havent cited any scholarly references.

    Nor have you. You issued the challenge, so ante up.

    That book has been roundly praised by historians and has received historical awards based on the merits of its research. Kindly say who has praised it and what awards it has won, and who awarded these? In all my research I have never come across any objective praise for the book, nor any historical awards it has won. I have come across a lot of people who've laughed at it, and one or two words of praise from anti-gun groups (who have an agenda anyway).

    I hope you're not referring to the usual contentious gun goonery sites on the internet who also refute case law by ignoring it completely.

    Oh, I've also seen those. Mind you, though, my research hasn't been restricted to just the Web. Perhaps yours has?

    Please cite ONE fucking case ending on appeal to support this constitutional solecism of yours. I dont care about anything else you have to say about defense, protection, revolution, this, that any other thing.

    JUST ONE.

    JUST ONE.

    JUST ONE.

    My, aren't we sounding professional today? I've tried to stay polite here, and I'd very much like to have the same courtesy afforded me. Including, in the case of this, at least an acknowledgement of what I have said. I am not asking for agreement. But if you intend to refute my statements, please actually refute them before moving on.


     
    ok, einstein. (none / 0) (#85)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 08:32:36 PM PST
    But I never advocated militia groups, now did I?

    Do you expect people to revolt individually? You seem willing to concede every argument with the purpose of making the rhetorical point that people will shoot their way out of the arguments' conclusions, as if people will win a revolution without the support and organization of mutinous armies.

    Here's you. There's a tank running over you. Lookit, a jet just gave you a buzz haircut. Wow, that artillery shell poised to land on your belly looks like its going to hurt!

    Get real. If you think fat USian rambos praying to a 2nd Amendment will win a war of revolution (what if black people revolt against white people?), you'll have the tyranny you deserve.


    Um... (none / 0) (#89)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 05:31:41 AM PST
    Do you expect people to revolt individually?

    They can try. They won't win, of course, but they can try. A successful revolution takes a group effort of course, and moreover it takes a really large group effort. But never forget that at its heart, even the largest group is made up of individuals.

    You seem willing to concede every argument with the purpose of making the rhetorical point that people will shoot their way out of the arguments' conclusions, as if people will win a revolution without the support and organization of mutinous armies.

    Why not? It's happened before.

    Here's you. There's a tank running over you. Lookit, a jet just gave you a buzz haircut. Wow, that artillery shell poised to land on your belly looks like its going to hurt!

    Your point?

    Get real. If you think fat USian rambos praying to a 2nd Amendment will win a war of revolution (what if black people revolt against white people?), you'll have the tyranny you deserve.

    I don't know whether to just laugh this off, or take extreme offense at the stereotypes you've laid out in that point, effectively calling me racist. I don't take very kindly to that.

    And if "black people revolt against white people" (a rather politically incorrect phrase; I salute you for being braver than most if your colleagues in that aspect), then they revolt. We'll see who wins, and we'll see what happens from there.


    ta ta (none / 0) (#91)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 05:55:33 AM PST
    Why not? It's happened before.

    No it hasnt.

    I don't know whether to just laugh this off, or take extreme offense at the stereotypes you've laid out in that point,

    What stereotype, you twit? Try to understand that out of 300,000,000 USians, far better than 299,999,999 will not appear anywhere near a fucking battlefield. It doesnt matter if you have 3 guns for every man woman and child to your current 2.

    We'll see who wins

    That's not the point. In your fantasy, a revolution will be an ordered revolt where all your social classes unite. That is a fantasy. You live in a cartoon world where all USian are courageous beyond stupidity and where Joe NRA will pistol whip a modern army, air force and navy. It doesnt work that way. Revolutions dont depend on arming granny, they depend on turning the government's own forces against itself, just like what happened in the American Revolution.


    Oh, boy... (none / 0) (#93)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 10:18:08 AM PST
    What stereotype, you twit? Try to understand that out of 300,000,000 USians, far better than 299,999,999 will not appear anywhere near a fucking battlefield. It doesnt matter if you have 3 guns for every man woman and child to your current 2.

    Your math doesn't work out right, unfortunately. I don't know the exact enlistment numbers of the US armed forces, but I'm pretty sure it's higher than one person.

    That's not the point. In your fantasy, a revolution will be an ordered revolt where all your social classes unite.

    Um, no. In fact, I'd have to say my "fantasy" is pretty close to the opposite of that. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

    That is a fantasy.

    Yes, it is. But I don't know of anyone here who honestly believes in it, so the point is moot.

    You live in a cartoon world where all USian are courageous beyond stupidity and where Joe NRA will pistol whip a modern army, air force and navy.

    And you live in a cartoon world where everyone is nice to everyone else all day and no one ever wants to do anything even remotely mean-spirited to anyone else. What's your point?

    And for the record, I don't think "Joe NRA" could pistol-whip a modern air force, army, and navy. Like I said, a revolution would have to have truly overwhelming popular support if it has any chance of winning. This is what keeps people from revolting at the drop of a hat.

    It doesnt work that way. Revolutions dont depend on arming granny, they depend on turning the government's own forces against itself, just like what happened in the American Revolution.

    This should be fun. Let me hear exactly how the US turned England's own forces against itself. Because it sure goes against every single historical account I've even heard, even fictionalized ones.


     
    I might also remind you ... (none / 0) (#81)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 02:41:22 PM PST
    that this is about whether or not your have a Constitutional Right to own a gun, not whether you believe guns are appropriate defensive weapons. We already know that guns can be useful and that people should and are allowed to own useful things. I am of the opinion that the purchase of a gun should be a much more difficult transaction than the purchase of a driving license, for example, not that gun ownership should be strictly illegal.

    The problem with popular interpretations of the 2nd Amendment is that they breed false consciousness and a withdrawl from citizenship in favor of paranoid, ineffectual fantasies that seek to fulfill their own prophesies. After all, if you think your gun protects you from tyranny, you are content to dismiss government with casual sentiments that amount to "well, they'll get theirs in the end, and if in the meantime they come onto my property, they better know how to dance around bullets."

    Now this is a popular American sentiment, but it is nevertheless completely, historically inaccurate in its misrepresentation of Federalism and the original Federalist philosophy of governance. More importantly -- because who cares what the Framers thought or said 250 years ago -- it is an uncritical, moral fantasy unrecognizable from reality.


    I consider myself reminded... (none / 0) (#83)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 08:04:06 PM PST
    that this is about whether or not your have a Constitutional Right to own a gun, not whether you believe guns are appropriate defensive weapons.

    Agreed. But the discussion seems to have trailed off into why this right is a necessary one. This naturally gets into the nature of guns, and wewapons in general.

    We already know that guns can be useful and that people should and are allowed to own useful things. I am of the opinion that the purchase of a gun should be a much more difficult transaction than the purchase of a driving license, for example, not that gun ownership should be strictly illegal.

    Well, frankly, I don't think getting a driving license should be nearly as easy as it is here anyway, but I digress.

    In any case, I would tend to agree with you, although I think our implementations of this would be different. I see mandatory gun-safety classes as a good way to start with this. Once someone completes the course with high enough marks (and I think those marks ought to be quite strict, certainly no less than the equivalent of a B and I would prefer an A), they're presented with a certificate or something similar. That certificate must in turn be presented to a gun shop when a purchase is made. Basically, i'm talking about certification, rather than full-on licensing.

    The problem with popular interpretations of the 2nd Amendment is that they breed false consciousness and a withdrawl from citizenship in favor of paranoid, ineffectual fantasies that seek to fulfill their own prophesies.

    I fail to see how this is the case. Please define "citizenship" as you used it there.

    After all, if you think your gun protects you from tyranny, you are content to dismiss government with casual sentiments that amount to "well, they'll get theirs in the end, and if in the meantime they come onto my property, they better know how to dance around bullets."

    Some people certainly do think that. Most don't. There are other things that one needs protection from, you know. In the case of most gun owners, government never enters their minds when you ask them what they need protection from. And that's good; it means things are going smoothly at the moment, all things considered. But it is naive to think that just because things are going smoothly now, that they always will.

    Now this is a popular American sentiment, but it is nevertheless completely, historically inaccurate in its misrepresentation of Federalism and the original Federalist philosophy of governance.

    There's a set of documents out there called the Federalist Papers. They were written by some of the Framers, in the years following the drafting of the Constitution. Very interesting reading, those; they give you a lot of insight into what they were trying to do. This is why constitutional lawyers study them along with the Constitution itself.

    More importantly -- because who cares what the Framers thought or said 250 years ago -- it is an uncritical, moral fantasy unrecognizable from reality.

    Um, I think you need to check your wording there. If it's unrecognizable from reality, that means it's so close to reality as to seem identical.

    Nevertheless, I catch your drift. Though I don't see any reasoning to back up your claim.

    And has it ever occurred to you that every once in a while, someone who said something a long time ago might actually have been right?


    this is hopeless (none / 0) (#86)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 08:55:35 PM PST
    I realize guns are articles of faith in a pervasive albeit false American mythology, and I've long since given up the ghost in trying to convince Americans of their ignorance in Constitutional matters, so this will be my last reply. Frankly, guns arent that interesting; the 2nd is settled law for anyone who bothers to check, and dead letter law for anyone who refuses to believe the legal testament.

    There's a set of documents out there called the Federalist Papers.

    So? There's nothing in the Federalist Papers that actually argues for an individual's Constitutional Right to own weapons. There is a tendency in gun advocates to divest ancient quotes from their justification in militia contexts.

    And has it ever occurred to you that every once in a while, someone who said something a long time ago might actually have been right?

    You are arguing messages you believe to be latent in the text rather than the text itself. I'll make my own logical inferences, thank you very much, and in the meantime, your hope in this debate is to convince me of the truth of what I know damn well was not said.

    Again, I dont care about your permission to own guns any more than I care about your common law privilege to own Anthrax or stuffed bears. What I care about is why you think Anthrax and stuffed bears can be regulated to a greater extent than guns? The answer is not Consitutional, it is a consequence of the frankly vile forces at play in your dollar democracy.


    Sorry to see you go... (none / 0) (#88)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 05:25:25 AM PST
    So? There's nothing in the Federalist Papers that actually argues for an individual's Constitutional Right to own weapons. There is a tendency in gun advocates to divest ancient quotes from their justification in militia contexts.

    Go back and read them, then. You evidently have not done so.

    What I care about is why you think Anthrax and stuffed bears can be regulated to a greater extent than guns?

    Who ever said I thought that? And what's with the "stuffed bear" thing, anyway?

    The answer is not Consitutional, it is a consequence of the frankly vile forces at play in your dollar democracy.

    Well, it's a shame you said this would be your last post, because I'd love to hear you elaborate on that. I don't deny there are "frankly vile forces at play in our dollar democracy." Nor will I deny there have been serious consequences of this; look at the DMCA, UCITA, USA Act, and so forth. But I don't see how this is one of those consequences. I hope someone else will fill in for you; I'd like to see your perspective on this some more, even if I disagree with it.

    Well, it's been fun, anyway. No hard feelings, I hope.


    I'm still not coming back (none / 0) (#92)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 06:04:28 AM PST
    Go back and read them, then. You evidently have not done so.

    I seem to have read a different version than you. Can you please cite the Federalist letter which claims the 2nd Amendment is an individual constitutional right?

    I'd love to hear you elaborate on that.

    Dude, election results correlate almost exactly -- that's near 100% -- with campaign spending. Where do campaign funds come from? Well, for the discussion at hand, the NRA is the largest single contributor of campaign funds to impoverished USian politicos, and the only civil rights organization (ha!) which has never has never contested gun laws on the basis of its pet amendment.


    You really want to have a go at this? (none / 0) (#94)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 10:24:16 AM PST
    Can you please cite the Federalist letter which claims the 2nd Amendment is an individual constitutional right?

    Let's start with one quote:

    "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." -Thomas Jefferson.

    Or this little gem from John Adams:

    "Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion...in private self defense..." -John Adams, A defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788).

    Are you happy with those examples? Or must we continue? I have more, if you'd like to see them.

    Dude, election results correlate almost exactly -- that's near 100% -- with campaign spending. Where do campaign funds come from? Well, for the discussion at hand, the NRA is the largest single contributor of campaign funds to impoverished USian politicos, and the only civil rights organization (ha!) which has never has never contested gun laws on the basis of its pet amendment.

    I won't deny the bits about election results and the amount of money the NRA spends on campaign contributions (note: I am not a member of the NRA). But I'm not sure I understand that last but about "has never contested gun laws on the basis of its pet amendment." Seems to me this is all the NRA does. It's possible I'm misunderstanding your wording, though. Could you please clarify?


    what do you mean "go" (none / 0) (#96)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 04:01:27 PM PST
    That suggests competition, You cannot be competitive at all because you have NO fucking primary evidence.

    Are you happy with those examples?

    Are you fucking daft? I appear to be arguing with someone who hasnt the first fucking clue as to the meaning of the phrase "constitutional right".

    I'm going to be even more generous this time. Please cite ONE reference ANYWHERE in the ENTIRE American Constitutional and juridical testament that concludes the 2nd Amendment is an individual's Constitutional Right. Is so that so hard to understand? Find the first fucking argument anywhere in the entire American testament that refers to guns, the 2nd Amendment and Constitutional Right in the same fucking thought.

    JUST ONE.

    I have more, if you'd like to see them.

    You do not have ONE. Not ONE exists. I dont care if John Adams thinks guns are useful. Get it? So do I. And as evidence of your continued dissimilitude, the John Adams quote is the following
    To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense or by partial orders of towns...is a dissolution of the government.
    Get it? He is arguing against you, you disingenuous, clueless fucking liar. Fuck, you gun shitheads make me sick.

    Sorry, the Federalist Papers are littered with anti professional army sentiment, but NOT ONE phrase that can stand on its own as an arguement for the individual's Constitutional Right to own weapons.

    NOT ONE.

    This is typical of what is meant when arms and people are mentioned in the same sentence.
    To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.

    -- Federalist 46


    I've had it. I will not waste one second replying to any series of irrelevant, mincing words you post except to repeat my single demand: Cite one legally enforceable opinion concluding the 2nd is an individual's Constitutional right. If you cannot do that (you cannot) cite one instance ANYWHERE in the ENTIRE American testament tbat refers to guns as an individual Constitutional Right.

    I am NOT interested in isolated, context free, inaccurately cited quotations that evoke tears in the eyes of gun goons. I am well aware that quotations by your saintly Framers rival the bible in their ability to "demonstrate" anything and everything when brandished in the negligent, intellectually dishonest manner you have demonstrated in common with your fellowship of fools.


    Well, bye, then... (none / 0) (#97)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 25th, 2001 at 05:48:38 AM PST
    It's a shame to see you forfeit like this. You're obviously an intelligent person, and I expected better of you than that.

    That suggests competition, You cannot be competitive at all because you have NO fucking primary evidence.

    Forgive me, but what suggests competition? It's true I used one or two gaming terms (particularly "ante up") in my quotes, but I was merely trying to break the tension. Though I do mean what I said. You accuse me of having no primary evidence, yet you have not provided any of your own either.

    Are you fucking daft? I appear to be arguing with someone who hasnt the first fucking clue as to the meaning of the phrase "constitutional right".

    constitutional right - n. one of any number of rights, which a nation's constitution either specifically grants, or which said constitution forbids the government from taking sway. See amendments 1-10 for examples.

    Is there some other definition of which I should be made aware?

    I'm going to be even more generous this time. Please cite ONE reference ANYWHERE in the ENTIRE American Constitutional and juridical testament that concludes the 2nd Amendment is an individual's Constitutional Right. Is so that so hard to understand? Find the first fucking argument anywhere in the entire American testament that refers to guns, the 2nd Amendment and Constitutional Right in the same fucking thought.

    How's about the Constitution itself? Or, to be more precise, the second amendment: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" (emphasis mine) The phrase preceding it was a rather poorly-worded attempt at justifying it, one which perhaps shouldn't have been left in there.

    JUST ONE.

    You do not have ONE. Not ONE exists. I dont care if John Adams thinks guns are useful. Get it? So do I. And as evidence of your continued dissimilitude, the John Adams quote is the following

    You have this fetish with capitalizing the word ONE, I see. It really ruins the effect. By the way, I've provided several, or is the Constitution not allowed to speak in its own defense?


    To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense or by partial orders of towns...is a dissolution of the government.


    Get it? He is arguing against you...

    Um, didn't you see what he said? "...except in private self-defense or by partial orders of towns." That says nothing about merely owning or carrying a weapon. Simply the uses to which it should be legally limited. It should be noted that uses of these weapons not listed here are already illegal, as they should be. So there is no need for further legislation.

    By the way, you only gave a partial quote. Where is the rest of it? I'd also like to see some context into which to put it.

    ...you disingenuous, clueless fucking liar. Fuck, you gun shitheads make me sick.

    Resorting to ad hominem attacks, I see. No offense, but it makes you look like you're desperate to find something to say.

    Sorry, the Federalist Papers are littered with anti professional army sentiment, but NOT ONE phrase that can stand on its own as an arguement for the individual's Constitutional Right to own weapons.

    This is typical of what is meant when arms and people are mentioned in the same sentence.


    To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.

    -- Federalist 46


    Obviously out of context; for example, what are "these" to which this militia would be opposed? Also, what does this have to do with the right to keep and bear arms? All it provides for is a military organization.

    I've had it. I will not waste one second replying to any series of irrelevant, mincing words you post...

    Sorry to see you go. I do think it's a shame your arguments degenerated into flames before you left, though. I wish we had been able to keep this civil.

    Although it does illustrate one of my points fairly well. I didn't agree with you. It made you mad. Mad enough that you threw some very serious insults my way. From your tone, it would seem that had we been talking face to face much longer, you would have gone violent in your rage. Where is your "civilized" society, then? If an intelligent person like yourself can't even stay civil with someone who disagrees with you, then does that not simply underscore the need for an effective means by which people can defend themselves?

    except to repeat my single demand: Cite one legally enforceable opinion concluding the 2nd is an individual's Constitutional right.

    It's right there in the Constitution itself. Plain and simple. In the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" there are only two words longer than one syllable: "people" and "infringed". Both of these words are very clearly defined. What is so hard to understand about this?

    If you cannot do that (you cannot) cite one instance ANYWHERE in the ENTIRE American testament tbat refers to guns as an individual Constitutional Right.

    If I cannot do it... then what? You're not even talking in coherent sentences anymore. Are you truly that angry at me?

    I am NOT interested in isolated, context free, inaccurately cited quotations that evoke tears in the eyes of gun goons.

    So am I. Please stop using them.

    I am well aware that quotations by your saintly Framers rival the bible in their ability to "demonstrate" anything and everything when brandished in the negligent, intellectually dishonest manner you have demonstrated in common with your fellowship of fools.

    Those are very serious, and very baseless, accusations.

    As I said before, I hope there are no hard feelings. I intended this to be an honest debate, but it seems my opponents have gotten carried away. I apologize for angering anyone, if I have in fact done so. But I stand by what I have said.


     
    Before you disagree so vehemently... (none / 0) (#99)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 26th, 2001 at 11:46:50 PM PST
    Please note that the article was (apparently, if you read some of the links) DONE AS SARCASM / SATIRE / IRONY.

    Yes, the constitution does get a bit too much "religious awe" at times. However, it did seem to work pretty well for quite a while.

    My pet peeve is that the federal government seems to have almost completely sucked the life out of state and count governments ("follow the money"). Keep in mind I'm talking peeve, NOT revolution -- read before you vote, don't just watch the pretty ads on the "boob-tube".

    Also, large multinational corporations seem almost like communism sometimes (central planning, peanut compensation to peasants, mindlessness), which we supposedly fought so hard the last half century to beat. But I guess that's a bit off topic...


     
    The constitution isn't software. (none / 0) (#69)
    by Anonymous Coward on Sun Oct 21st, 2001 at 11:44:13 AM PST
    So don't try to engineer it as if you're Microsoft and the world must perforce use whatever build.

    People don't get along very well. Not only those guys who fly planes into buildings or those guys who drop bombs of Afghanastan. But people right here on Adequacy.org fighting and insulting and DoS attacking. So it would be nice if a bunch of them would sit down for peace talks. Well, some did and what they could agree to is called The Constitution. Yeah, it sucks, but it had to make everyone happy and a lot of the people who had to be made happy were assholes.

    That said, they did a remarkably good job under the circumstances. And it's much easier to build on an existing agreement than to start from scratch. So we have this agreement. And people more or less take it seriously and try and relate what they do to it. That itself is some kind of miracle. So don't knock it. And fly the flag 'n' shit. God bless America.

    -- Support the home page homeless.

     
    Funny thing (none / 0) (#77)
    by jandersen on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 06:47:38 AM PST
    - how every American talking about America must use the words 'patriot' and 'freedom' as well as mention what a great country America is. One could get the impression that Americans don't really believe in those things; why else try to convince each other by repeating them all the time?

    I agree - the American constitution does indeed need to be rewritten from scratch. It is simply too old and written in a style that doesn't allow for real amendments. But I don't think you Americans believe enough in freedom etc to dare change it.

    This is one of the things that make me feel that America is in for a very serious downturn. Just look at yourselves: your impossible electoral system has landed you with a president who is ignorant, possibly of low intelligence and who claims that God wants him to go to Afganistan and kill Injuns, sorry Muslims, I mean terrorists. And isn't it also your constitution that makes sure that you have a corrupt political and court system where money can buy political power and 'justice'?

    I'm sorry to say this - but America is not a 'great' country in any sense except the geographical and miltary ones. You have the potential, though, and believe me, there's nothing I'd like better than seeing America turn into a great country.

    So why isn't America great? Need I mention: ruthless and dishonest politicians (domestic and foreign), greedy companies (which is another political issue), apparent lack of respect for environment and for other cultures; and an entrenched unwillingness to listen to criticism, however gentle. These are harsh words; I am perfectly willing to expand on them, if asked to, but I don't want to write a long and tedious rant here, as I don't expect a lot of you to agree.

    It has been said by many that a truly great person is gentle, not ruthless, truthful, not false, modest rather than stupidly boasting of his/her qualities whether they are imagined or not. It would be nice, if America were a great nation.


     

    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.