To take what was written in the 1700s and apply it today is crazy

The only truly psychotic thing about the Constitution was the magical finding that it says a woman has the right to kill her unborn child. I'm sure it's in there but I'll be jiggered if I can find it. That's crazy. Although the left hates most of the Constitution, with special hatred for that damned free speech amendment, the only crazy thing is fantasizing about what's in there. Another thing you won't find is anything suggesting that a valedictorian can't thank a god in her speech. That's another psychotic fantasy of liberals.

And someone should tell the nitwit in the White House that the Constitution does not say he gets to be King and rule without Congress.

 

Its funny, liberals only accept their interpretation. They are the most intolerant group of people on the planet.

The Nazis didn't die out, they just dropped the Swastika as their symbol and instead use the Donkey.

 

republicans and dems can not agree enough to make congress run smoothly, no way they could right a new constitution

and everyone should be allowed to own guns.... it keeps America safer

.

 

For someone who decries poor interpretation, you sure have interpreted the 2A poorly.

 

There are those things called amendments you seem to be either blatantly ignoring or completely unaware of, as they would indeed reflect change from the original document. The problem liberals have with amendments is they aren't easy to pass and that bothers them because they know sensible people won't buy the trash they are selling, so they try every underhanded dirty trick in the book to get around them to enact their insidious will upon the people...

 

It's that psychotic fantasy problem the leftists have. They think when it says, "...the right to bear arms shall not be infringed," it's really saying, in LibWorld, "Tom, Dick, and Harry shall not be allowed to bear arms without federal permission."

 

That's the usual response of the uneducated and ill informed.

 

Two Class 3 Weapons (Fully Automatic) (That were legal) have been used in crimes in the U.S. that resulted in death.

So yeah... Not much of a threat from responsible Americans.

 

The gun ownership per capita in Canada is actually higher than my home state of California, and we're definitely not allowed to bring guns to the store


I see nothing wrong with the gun laws in Canada, Germany, or Sweden.. the US can adapt those nations' regulations and still keep the second amendment rights

 

We already have them but the Democratics and Republicans don't want to enforce them

Guide Extra: The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits certain people from possessing a firearm. The possession of any firearm by one of these "prohibited persons" is a felony offense. It is also a felony for any person, including a registered Federal Firearms Licensee to sell or otherwise transfer any firearm to a person knowing or having "reasonable cause" to believe that the person receiving the firearm is prohibited from firearm possession. There are nine categories of persons prohibited from possessing firearms under the Gun Control Actersons under indictment for, or convicted of, any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding on year; Fugitives from justice; Persons who are unlawful users of, or addicted to, any controlled substance; Persons who have been declared by a court as mental defectives or have been committed to a mental institution; Illegal aliens, or aliens who were admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa; Persons who have been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces; Persons who have renounced their United States citizenship; Persons subject to certain types of restraining orders; and Persons who have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

 

In klecks book Targeting Guns he reported the head of BATF testifing before congress he knew of less than ten violations involving the legal ones. Of course violations do not mean violent crimes. Both of the homicides you mention were after the 1986 ban on buying "new" technology for civilians. One was a doctor the other a cop killing a informant. Of course the police departments can still buy the new technolgy. Like all gun control laws the emphasis is on control not safety. Thanks Mr. Reagan for restricting rights when that were not even being abused. Another of the many reason to never trust govt. to protect by restricting your rights.

 

In some places, yes, in others, no. Take Australia for example. Human habitation conservatively estimated at 40,000 years. Human society in this landmass was pretty much static in terms of its development for that period up until European inhabitation in the 18th Century. From there is changed markedly. And before the bigots see a chance to jump in - the indigenous population had a static development for that long period of time because what they were doing worked fine for them. The Europeans had a well developed culture which they brought with them and imposed on the landmass we call Australia. And that's the way of things for humans so I'm not going to get all cranky about that either (again, just in case the bigots fancy a chance).

Human societies change because of need. They resist change because of human nature. That's not a bad thing. Humans have evolved to be cautious about change. Conservatism is a useful response to ensure we don't get ourselves in trouble. Reaction is not a useful response though. When the argument for change has been won a conservative will happily concede and get on with it. Reactionaries can't handle it and go nutso. They can't face the fact that there's a sort of dialectic driving change in human society and the synthesis becomes the new status quo which rules for a while and is then challenged out of need whereupon the change process starts again.

 

The problem is that human nature, no matter the interpretation of 'progress', has not changed. Just because people are enticed by the idea that somehow their generation is different than the last does not change the dynamic. Just because they think changing mores or having new gadgets somehow makes them different is a deception. It is just hubris.

 

Canada has more guns per capita than America. You seem to be doing alright.

 

Human nature doesn't change, but human behaviour can and does and it changes due to the progress of humans in managing their environment (I'm not talking about the weather here, I mean the social environment). I suggest that today humans are more progressive than at any time in our history. Human nature hasn't changed but our attitudes and behaviours have changed and changed for the better.

 

Because the culture and attitude towards guns is very different as well as their gun laws

 

Have people changed?

 

The culture has

 

everyone should be able to have a gun in their house to protect themselves, go hunting, camping, you name it

but I do not think people should flaunt their guns, I think concealed carry should be mandatory rather then a special privilege for a few

you go with your guns in your hands into a bank, you risk being shot

...

 

Culture is different indeed, but I was actually incorrect in my statement anyway.

Canada might have more registered guns per capita than America, but they probably have far fewer guns per capita overall.

Anyway, if we narrow down the discussion to culture, I think that does imply that guns themselves aren't the problem.

 

Very true. Guns have never been the problem. It's the person who
decides to perform a criminal act that's the problem.

 

The really ignorant liberals of today attacking the Constitution that was written by men far more intelligent than them is laughable.

Liberals again are talking out of both sides of their mouth. On one side they say dont attack the stupid obamacare bill, because it is set law. Now the other side says we should attack the Constitution which has been set law for more than 200 years.

 

Perhaps people don't, but our country and our world sure has. Or haven't you noticed?

 

I'm not sure our current representation is either bright enough or capable enough to rewrite a Constitution anyway. I don't trust them to do anything right these days, much less something on the order of a Constitution.

 

Yeah, the $20 limit mentioned in the 7th Amendment has the same value today as in 1780.

The quartering of soldiers in my Boise, Idaho house in times of war is definitely something I should be concerned about.