Why does the constitution matter?

BH304897 · January 2011

Who said to get rid of the constitution?

Cosmo · January 2011

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 · January 2011

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paper written over 200 years ago, it was important at the time and as a meaning, however the litteral translation today is obsolete to say the least.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however the litteral translation today is obsolete to say the least.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 · January 2011

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paper written over 200 years ago, it was important at the time and as a meaning, however the litteral translation today is obsolete to say the least.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 · January 2011

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 · January 2011

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 · January 2011

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 · January 2011

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 · January 2011

.."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 · January 2011

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.

BH304897 · January 2011

Problem being the extreme amount of non registered guns being used in this country, which I would imagine is a high % of crimes. Most registered gun owners probably aren't commiting crimes with them, but that doesn't mean someone else isn't or that there not responsible for accidental deaths.

JonnyPistachio · January 2011

mikepegg44 wrote:

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.

This is what i've been saying for days around here. I totally agree. It would be expensive at first, but you combine that with some kind of tracking (OnStar) type device and guns that are manufactured from here on out will be much less likely to end up in the wrong hands.

Cosmo · January 2011

mikepegg44 wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

...
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

...
I'm a firm believer in the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment. I don't want to take anyone's guns away.
But, i believe in responsible ownership and use of guns. Like you said, you can use your loaded gun to hammer in nails... as long as you don't do it around me (or anyone else).
The Second Amendment does not allow the right to gun ownership to be infringed, but it does not guarantee you the right to build your own army. Thus, you cannot own a functioning 105mm Howitzer or an operational M-1A1 tank.

unsung · January 2011

BH304897 wrote:

.."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.

Hitler disarmed the public. See where that got them?

I can't believe someone asked the importance of the Constitution. It is there to protect the PEOPLE from the GOVERNMENT.

satansbed · January 2011

unsung wrote:

BH304897 wrote:

.."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.

Hitler disarmed the public. See where that got them?

I can't believe someone asked the importance of the Constitution. It is there to protect the PEOPLE from the GOVERNMENT.

yeah but Hitler wasn't in charge of a democracy...

BinauralJam · January 2011

satansbed wrote:

unsung wrote:

BH304897 wrote:

.."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.

Hitler disarmed the public. See where that got them?

I can't believe someone asked the importance of the Constitution. It is there to protect the PEOPLE from the GOVERNMENT.

yeah but Hitler wasn't in charge of a democracy...

i thought it was? no?

Cosmo · January 2011

unsung wrote:

Hitler disarmed the public. See where that got them?

I can't believe someone asked the importance of the Constitution. It is there to protect the PEOPLE from the GOVERNMENT.

...
Fact Check:
Major changes to the German gun laws occurred in 1928 and 1931 (under the Weimar Republic). The changes in 1928 and 1931 were designed to disarm the Nazis and Communists and therefore it is doubtful that Hitler would trumpet the success of any law aimed at his goon squads.
In 1938 (under the Nazi’s), The Nazi Weapons Law (or Waffengesetz) which further restricted the possession of militarily useful weapons and forbade trade in weapons without a government-issued license was passed on March 18, 1938. When the Nazis enacted their law in 1938, they added restrictions aimed at Jews and non-citizens, such as not allowing Jews to work in any business involving guns. They also prohibited those under eighteen from buying guns, added yet another permit for handguns, and banned silencers and small hollow-point ammunition. Of course, Nazi officials were exempted from all gun permits. Later that year, after "Kristallnacht," Hitler forbade Jews to possess pretty much any weapons.
The German people were already under the influence of Hitler and allowed to keep their weapons. Unless, of course, you were Jewish (or Slavic or Turkish or not a legal citizen).

usamamasan1 · January 2011

unsung wrote:

I can't believe someone asked the importance of the Constitution. It is there to protect the PEOPLE from the GOVERNMENT.

:thumbup:

JonnyPistachio · January 2011

unsung wrote:

BH304897 wrote:

.."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.

Hitler disarmed the public. See where that got them?

I can't believe someone asked the importance of the Constitution. It is there to protect the PEOPLE from the GOVERNMENT.

if you're talking about the OP, he said he was discussing it with a friend and just wanted to know what other people though about the constitution. Its just a discussion, I wouldnt just assume they dont know the importance.

usamamasan1 · January 2011

fife wrote:

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

I would assume the OP does not know the importance based on, the OP....

Why does the constitution matter?

Comments

Categories