Why does the constitution matter?

fife

So i was talking with a friend of mine yesterday about what happen in Azi. and we discussed the gun laws and i raised that i don't believe that guns should be legal and he raised the part about the right to have arms and how it based on the US constitution.

we then started to expand out talk to other issues facing America such as tea party movement and how they want to limit government to what under the con. they are allowed to do. i began to wonder why people hold the constitution to be so important.

I have never understood why any piece of paper is that important but i want to learn from other why they think it's important?

Thank you

mikepegg44

fife wrote:

So i was talking with a friend of mine yesterday about what happen in Azi. and we discussed the gun laws and i raised that i don't believe that guns should be legal and he raised the part about the right to have arms and how it based on the US constitution.

we then started to expand out talk to other issues facing America such as tea party movement and how they want to limit government to what under the con. they are allowed to do. i began to wonder why people hold the constitution to be so important.

I have never understood why any piece of paper is that important but i want to learn from other why they think it's important?

Thank you

the constitution is the document that outlines what government can and cannot do. It is the single most important "piece of paper" in our nation's history. Without it we have a completely different country today. It isn't simply a piece of paper by the way...it is a set of rules that is supposed to limit what the federal government can do. The beauty of it being that the document itself isn't even finished. It actually has rules in place to add to it or take away. Not sure how you cannot see its importance.

he still stands

I think it's a fair question, but to warn you there will be several people here that will say the answer is intrinsic, implicit, or "common sense" and it's a dumb question.

For me, I think it is because it's the "backbone" of our government. The bedrock principles of the federal government, the branches of government, and the relationships between federal and state government are about as immutable as anything in this world. It is sort of "worshipped" in that regard because people feel there is a slippery slope - a change here or there will lead to a complete upheaval of our current way of life.

There are many questionable or downright stupid things in the constitution and it has allowed for a democracy to be turned into a fascist police state, so maybe a complete revision is in order? That "revision" would actually be a complete "revolution" though and I don't think our military will allow that to happen!

fife

mikepegg44 wrote:

fife wrote:

So i was talking with a friend of mine yesterday about what happen in Azi. and we discussed the gun laws and i raised that i don't believe that guns should be legal and he raised the part about the right to have arms and how it based on the US constitution.

we then started to expand out talk to other issues facing America such as tea party movement and how they want to limit government to what under the con. they are allowed to do. i began to wonder why people hold the constitution to be so important.

I have never understood why any piece of paper is that important but i want to learn from other why they think it's important?

Thank you

the constitution is the document that outlines what government can and cannot do. It is the single most important "piece of paper" in our nation's history. Without it we have a completely different country today. It isn't simply a piece of paper by the way...it is a set of rules that is supposed to limit what the federal government can do. The beauty of it being that the document itself isn't even finished. It actually has rules in place to add to it or take away. Not sure how you cannot see its importance.

your right i choose the wrong words, i can see the important but i can't see the blind faith that people have towards it. I see it as a set of rules that was written many centuries ago by people who in reality never understood what the future will be like.

BinauralJam

i belive the world in anarchy and we create ideas to make us feel better, but don't do much when we need it.

Cool Face Ryan

I wrote a paper on why the second amendment should be revoked for my American Government class last semester. A+

eddiec

manutd3581 wrote:

I wrote a paper on why the second amendment should be revoked for my American Government class last semester. A+

Post It.

Cool Face Ryan

eddiec wrote:

manutd3581 wrote:

I wrote a paper on why the second amendment should be revoked for my American Government class last semester. A+

Post It.

I dont have it anymore i clean out my inventory of school work after my grades come in :shock:

pandora

manutd3581 wrote:

eddiec wrote:

manutd3581 wrote:

I wrote a paper on why the second amendment should be revoked for my American Government class last semester. A+

Post It.

I dont have it anymore i clean out my inventory of school work after my grades come in :shock:

maybe save some of your writing, you may want them some day.....40 years from now

whygohome

http://www.hulu.com/watch/207598/saturd ... nal-corner

Hugh Freaking Dillon

too bad you got rid of it, I would have loved to have read it too.

manutd3581 wrote:

I wrote a paper on why the second amendment should be revoked for my American Government class last semester. A+

mickeyrat

gotta love wiki
Umm, while highly important for the country, I would argue that the Declaration of Independence is the first important documant even though we weren't formally recognized as a country yet. Constitution was written a full 11 years after the Declaration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Constitution

mickeyrat

just for reference sake
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution

Waidian

manutd3581 wrote:

I wrote a paper on why the second amendment should be revoked for my American Government class last semester. A+

Bet you would have gotten an F if you wrote a paper that was anti-abortion.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

:?

Waidian wrote:

manutd3581 wrote:

I wrote a paper on why the second amendment should be revoked for my American Government class last semester. A+

Bet you would have gotten an F if you wrote a paper that was anti-abortion.

know1

I'm not intelligent enough to speak about the importance of the entire constitution, but I will say that the so-called right to bear arms has slowly gone away over the years to the point that it's meaningless now.

At the time it was written, it basically meant the right to have the same kind of weapons the government could access. Currently, it just means we can own pistols, rifles and shotguns.

Comparatively, it would be like the citizens being allowed to possess sewing needles and twigs back then when it was written (when the government had guns and cannons).

he still stands

Come on guys, does ANYONE remember the movie Bowling for Columbine? It was pretty sloppy at points but Moore makes the point, and I think it a good one, that justing OWNING guns can't be blamed for our violence. Many other countries have similar gun ownership rates but don't have the violence.

mikepegg44

fife wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

fife wrote:

So i was talking with a friend of mine yesterday about what happen in Azi. and we discussed the gun laws and i raised that i don't believe that guns should be legal and he raised the part about the right to have arms and how it based on the US constitution.

we then started to expand out talk to other issues facing America such as tea party movement and how they want to limit government to what under the con. they are allowed to do. i began to wonder why people hold the constitution to be so important.

I have never understood why any piece of paper is that important but i want to learn from other why they think it's important?

Thank you

the constitution is the document that outlines what government can and cannot do. It is the single most important "piece of paper" in our nation's history. Without it we have a completely different country today. It isn't simply a piece of paper by the way...it is a set of rules that is supposed to limit what the federal government can do. The beauty of it being that the document itself isn't even finished. It actually has rules in place to add to it or take away. Not sure how you cannot see its importance.

your right i choose the wrong words, i can see the important but i can't see the blind faith that people have towards it. I see it as a set of rules that was written many centuries ago by people who in reality never understood what the future will be like.

It isn't blind faith. It is simple...without this document our country looks completely different today, and the history of our country would have been completely different. It is a set of ever changing rules...in that the founders realized they couldn't do it perfectly but wrote into the document how to make the necessary changes. That is the beauty of it. 200 plus years later and adhering to this document still does way more good than bad.

BH304897

Like just about every piece of paper written over 200 years ago, it was important at the time and as a meaning, however the litteral translation today is obsolete to say the least. If I'm correct there is no mention of right to bear arms in it, it was meant for the people to have the right to form a militia when the government was unable to supply an adequate protection (ie army). This has been interpreted by many, but they are just that interpretations. In this day in age the anyone who uses the right to bear arms as a reason to rebel against a corrupt government is fooling themselves, how good is a shotgun against missiles, tanks, aircraft etc. Personally I think people should have a right to own guns, but there should be required week long classes each year teaching gun safety etc. If you don't go or don't pass you lose the right until it's completed. Just a personal opinion though.

acoustic guy

manutd3581 wrote:

I wrote a paper on why the second amendment should be revoked for my American Government class last semester. A+

And what far left liberal college was this???

acoustic guy

Get rid of the constitution????
Some of you in here make me sick...

BH304897

Who said to get rid of the constitution?

Cosmo

BH304897 wrote:

Who said to get rid of the constitution?

...
My guess... that voice in his head that sounds like his neighbor's dog.

mikepegg44

BH304897 wrote:

Like just about every piece of paper written over 200 years ago, it was important at the time and as a meaning, however the litteral translation today is obsolete to say the least. If I'm correct there is no mention of right to bear arms in it, it was meant for the people to have the right to form a militia when the government was unable to supply an adequate protection (ie army). This has been interpreted by many, but they are just that interpretations. In this day in age the anyone who uses the right to bear arms as a reason to rebel against a corrupt government is fooling themselves, how good is a shotgun against missiles, tanks, aircraft etc. Personally I think people should have a right to own guns, but there should be required week long classes each year teaching gun safety etc. If you don't go or don't pass you lose the right until it's completed. Just a personal opinion though.

This is the second amendment and how it reads.."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."

however the litteral translation today is obsolete to say the least.

hopefully you are only referring to the 2nd amendment when you say this

edit:

You can have all the gun safety rules you want, make people take a class every month or even day for that matter, but those that are going to follow the rules are not the ones you need to worry about

BH304897

mikepegg44 wrote:

BH304897 wrote:

Like just about every piece of paper written over 200 years ago, it was important at the time and as a meaning, however the litteral translation today is obsolete to say the least. If I'm correct there is no mention of right to bear arms in it, it was meant for the people to have the right to form a militia when the government was unable to supply an adequate protection (ie army). This has been interpreted by many, but they are just that interpretations. In this day in age the anyone who uses the right to bear arms as a reason to rebel against a corrupt government is fooling themselves, how good is a shotgun against missiles, tanks, aircraft etc. Personally I think people should have a right to own guns, but there should be required week long classes each year teaching gun safety etc. If you don't go or don't pass you lose the right until it's completed. Just a personal opinion though.

This is the second amendment and how it reads.."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."

however the litteral translation today is obsolete to say the least.

hopefully you are only referring to the 2nd amendment when you say this

I don't have a copy in front of me, but I'm guessing theres probably more. However I would argue that "a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state".

Cosmo

mikepegg44 wrote:

This is the second amendment and how it reads.."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."

however the litteral translation today is obsolete to say the least.

hopefully you are only referring to the 2nd amendment when you say this

...
Doesn't the Second Amendment create a well regulated militia of citizens... for the security of a Free State?
Back in the 1700s, the armed forces were British Soldiers, not colonists. They were under the order of the colonial govenors, appointed by the King of England to provide security for the American colonies.
There's a reason why the First Amendment is First, the Second Amendment, second. Both were high priority in the late 1700s. The colonies were under the direction of the Crown of England, speaking out against the King or the Church of England was not allowed to and the security was enforced by the British Army. There's also a reason why the Third Amendment is placed where it is. The army could commandeer your home to house and quarter their troops and there wasn't anything you could do about it.

mikepegg44

BH304897 wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

BH304897 wrote:

Like just about every piece of paper written over 200 years ago, it was important at the time and as a meaning, however the litteral translation today is obsolete to say the least. If I'm correct there is no mention of right to bear arms in it, it was meant for the people to have the right to form a militia when the government was unable to supply an adequate protection (ie army). This has been interpreted by many, but they are just that interpretations. In this day in age the anyone who uses the right to bear arms as a reason to rebel against a corrupt government is fooling themselves, how good is a shotgun against missiles, tanks, aircraft etc. Personally I think people should have a right to own guns, but there should be required week long classes each year teaching gun safety etc. If you don't go or don't pass you lose the right until it's completed. Just a personal opinion though.

This is the second amendment and how it reads.."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."

however the litteral translation today is obsolete to say the least.

hopefully you are only referring to the 2nd amendment when you say this

I don't have a copy in front of me, but I'm guessing theres probably more. However I would argue that "a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state".

no that really is it. I would suggest reading the entire bill of rights some time, it is a good thing to have read. Not being a smart ass, but am just suggesting it.

Were you simply referring to the 2nd amendment, or do you think the constitution itself is obsolete? Personally i don't care if the right to gun ownership goes away, as long as the proper steps to constitutional amendment are followed...the problem is people want to do it in a way that doesn't change the constitution, but rather creates laws that violate the constitution. Like I said earlier, one of the greatest things about the constitution is that there are rules in place to change it.

BH304897

This is the second amendment and how it reads.."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."

however the litteral translation today is obsolete to say the least.

hopefully you are only referring to the 2nd amendment when you say this[/quote]

I don't have a copy in front of me, but I'm guessing theres probably more. However I would argue that "a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state".[/quote]


no that really is it. I would suggest reading the entire bill of rights some time, it is a good thing to have read. Not being a smart ass, but am just suggesting it.

Were you simply referring to the 2nd amendment, or do you think the constitution itself is obsolete? Personally i don't care if the right to gun ownership goes away, as long as the proper steps to constitutional amendment are followed...the problem is people want to do it in a way that doesn't change the constitution, but rather creates laws that violate the constitution. Like I said earlier, one of the greatest things about the constitution is that there are rules in place to change it.[/quote]

No I was reffering to the second amendment before, and like I said without a copy I have no other examples to point out, and you may be right that may be the only one, as I haven't read the thing in years at least. You are right it's probably a good thing to read. On a furhter note, it really would be hard to take away the right to own guns. The changing of the constitution would probably be the easiest part. It would be like prohibition times ten. I don't own or like guns, however again I'm not against owning them but there should be some safety courses required, which isn't taking away anyones rights to own a gun just making sure they know how to use, store, etc.

mikepegg44

Cosmo wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

This is the second amendment and how it reads.."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."

however the litteral translation today is obsolete to say the least.

hopefully you are only referring to the 2nd amendment when you say this

...
Doesn't the Second Amendment create a well regulated militia of citizens... for the security of a Free State?
Back in the 1700s, the armed forces were British Soldiers, not colonists. They were under the order of the colonial govenors, appointed by the King of England to provide security for the American colonies.
There's a reason why the First Amendment is First, the Second Amendment, second. Both were high priority in the late 1700s. The colonies were under the direction of the Crown of England, speaking out against the King or the Church of England was not allowed to and the security was enforced by the British Army. There's also a reason why the Third Amendment is placed where it is. The army could commandeer your home to house and quarter their troops and there wasn't anything you could do about it.

yep. Even if I only use my gun for pounding nails, it is there in black and white...no law shall be passed to infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. I am not here to support the 2nd amendment at all, just provide what the constitution actually says. You can debate the merit of the 2nd amendment all you want, you will get very little argument from me. I love having my guns, I use them the legal way, why shouldn't I be allowed to have them? but if the feds and the states get together and ratify an amendment that takes them away, I will be the first in line to give them back

BH304897

.."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."

Once again I would argue that in 2011 a well regulated militia is not neccessary to the security of our free state. Doesn't seem black and white to me.

mikepegg44

BH304897 wrote:

No I was reffering to the second amendment before, and like I said without a copy I have no other examples to point out, and you may be right that may be the only one, as I haven't read the thing in years at least. You are right it's probably a good thing to read. On a furhter note, it really would be hard to take away the right to own guns. The changing of the constitution would probably be the easiest part. It would be like prohibition times ten. I don't own or like guns, however again I'm not against owning them but there should be some safety courses required, which isn't taking away anyones rights to own a gun just making sure they know how to use, store, etc.

I am glad you were referring only to the 2nd amendment, the other way of taking that statement would have been a whole different topic!!

What I would like to see is fingerprint analyzers attached to weapons as a security measure. That in order to fire any weapon, a fingerprint is necessary. This would then be stored on a chip and can be accessed when a crime is committed and the weapon retrieved. Cost effective...probably not, but an interesting way to promote gun security.