Originally posted by Zahlanziit doesnt matter. we cannot pick and choose which parts of the constitution we abide by, then what is the point of having one at all? im just saying that's why i think it was originally written and although it may be outdated, we are still to honor it.
i wonder whenever will the "need" for a militia arise. and the most important puzzle is how long will that militia last against a hypothetical oppressive US government that has aircraft, tanks, trained marines and satellite surveillance. it is an important puzzle but quite easily answered.
the problem with rednecks and other people that can't let go of t ...[text shortened]... chimney, there is not much use a rifle will be for you.
the second amendment is obsolete.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThey had fixed bayonets and had set up machine guns. Those aren't the acts of people who have excluded the use of deadly force.
How do you know the troops were willing to use deadly force? The deaths were caused by police, not military, except one baby who died from tear gas (not normally considered lethal force).
Originally posted by david haworthThe U.S. Constitution is outdated? First you say we should not pick and choose form it(which I agree with, we should tell the government that.😉 ) then you say it is outdated. So then we should have no need for the three branches? Or the numerous rights for the individual states? No need for the 1st Amendment right of freedom of speech? Or a freedom of an establishment of religion? Or freedom of the press?...I can go on and on if you'd like.
it doesnt matter. we cannot pick and choose which parts of the constitution we abide by, then what is the point of having one at all? im just saying that's why i think it was originally written and although it may be outdated, we are still to honor it.
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungDoes it really matter what it says? Things change over time.
A friend sent me this as a study in what the 2nd Amendment means. What do you think?
http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/164311
In Webster's English
Stephen P. Halbrook
Halbrook, an attorney and research fellow at The Independent Institute,
Oakland, Calif., is author of "The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of
the Righ i]
According to your consitiutuion and amendments, any non-white male votes shall only be considered to count for 1/4 of a vote. In other words, at the time, they considered a black persons vote to only be worth 1/4 of a white mans vote.
Why don't you also follow the wording here? Simple, because times change.
Why you Americans don't just don't come out and say you want to buy guns because you like them, and not because your constitution says you can have them, is crazy to the rest of the world.
Your constitution says alot of things that you guys ignore, yet you hold out these few lines as gospel. Kind of like the bible...but that's another story
Originally posted by uzlessThere is no such provision in the US Constitution.
Does it really matter what it says? Things change over time.
According to your consitiutuion and amendments, any non-white male votes shall only be considered to count for 1/4 of a vote. In other words, at the time, they considered a black persons vote to only be worth 1/4 of a white mans vote.
Why don't you also follow the wording here? Simple, bec ...[text shortened]... t you hold out these few lines as gospel. Kind of like the bible...but that's another story
There is little reason to have a society based on inalienable rights if those rights can disappear at the whim of a majority at any time.
Originally posted by pritybettawell the idea that we should be concerned with someone taking over our government and establishing a dictatorship is a bit outdated. however i said we should not throw out parts of our constitution in which we consider to be outdated because it's very dangerous to do that. congress could decide freedom of speech is outdated. im just saying even if it is outdated, we should not let our congress have the ability to decide which parts of the constitution we should keep and which we should not.
The U.S. Constitution is outdated? First you say we should not pick and choose form it(which I agree with, we should tell the government that.😉 ) then you say it is outdated. So then we should have no need for the three branches? Or the numerous rights for the individual states? No need for the 1st Amendment right of freedom of speech? Or a freedom of an establishment of religion? Or freedom of the press?...I can go on and on if you'd like.
Originally posted by uzlessAccording to your consitiutuion and amendments, any non-white male votes shall only be considered to count for 1/4 of a vote.
Does it really matter what it says? Things change over time.
According to your consitiutuion and amendments, any non-white male votes shall only be considered to count for 1/4 of a vote. In other words, at the time, they considered a black persons vote to only be worth 1/4 of a white mans vote.
Why don't you also follow the wording here? Simple, bec ...[text shortened]... t you hold out these few lines as gospel. Kind of like the bible...but that's another story
Where?
Originally posted by david haworthwell the idea that we should be concerned with someone taking over our government and establishing a dictatorship is a bit outdated.
well the idea that we should be concerned with someone taking over our government and establishing a dictatorship is a bit outdated. however i said we should not throw out parts of our constitution in which we consider to be outdated because it's very dangerous to do that. congress could decide freedom of speech is outdated. im just saying even if it i ...[text shortened]... e the ability to decide which parts of the constitution we should keep and which we should not.
I think we should be concerned more now than ever. They may not be able to take over by force but they can secretly do so by getting elected and not do what the people wanted from them, which has been happening. This is why most are unable to detect when it is truly tyrants running and they are voting for them. We have plenty of elected officials that want power rather than do what the people want. These people are home grown tyrants. If you do not see this then you are deceived by them or you are one of them.
Originally posted by pritybettano, i think all politicians have our best interests at heart and are extremely selfless.
[b]well the idea that we should be concerned with someone taking over our government and establishing a dictatorship is a bit outdated.
I think we should be concerned more now than ever. They may not be able to take over by force but they can secretly do so by getting elected and not do what the people wanted from them, which has been happening. Th ...[text shortened]... home grown tyrants. If you do not see this then you are deceived by them or you are one of them.[/b]
of course they're gonna do what is best for them, this has been going on for thousands of years. they payback the people that got them elected, and the people are not completely innocent, there are plenty of candidates who say what they think and tell the truth about what they will do, but they never get supported by a party because people will believe what they want to hear.
Originally posted by david haworthGET A GUN!
no, i think all politicians have our best interests at heart and are extremely selfless.
of course they're gonna do what is best for them, this has been going on for thousands of years. they payback the people that got them elected, and the people are not completely innocent, there are plenty of candidates who say what they think and tell the truth ...[text shortened]... do, but they never get supported by a party because people will believe what they want to hear.
GRANNY.
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat the hell do they teach you Americans in your schools???
There is no such provision in the US Constitution.
There is little reason to have a society based on inalienable rights if those rights can disappear at the whim of a majority at any time.
Have any of you EVER ACTUALLY READ your consitituion?? I will say I was incorrect. It says 3/5's instead o 1/4 but the point is still the same.
Article 1, Section 2 states,
"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons"
For the Americans here at RHP, this section of your constitution describes the process by which representatives are allocated to each state by way of your Census.
You should note the last line. it says 3/5 OF ALL OTHER PERSONS. It meant essentially that black people would only be counted as 3/5 of a person.
I'm not making this up, you can read your own consitiution for yourself.
So, explain to me again why you think some lines about having a militia with guns gives you all some kind of right to buy guns when clearly this document contained other questionable items when judged by modern standards.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html
Originally posted by uzlessWhat makes youb think we give a rats ass what you think? You got some serious wood for the US, eh!
What the hell do they teach you Americans in your schools???
Have any of you EVER ACTUALLY READ your consitituion?? I will say I was incorrect. It says 3/5's instead o 1/4 but the point is still the same.
Article 1, Section 2 states,
"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this u ...[text shortened]... d by modern standards.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html
GRANNY.
Originally posted by uzlessMaybe you should learn how to read. The provision you mention was solely for the purposes of setting the number of representatives each state would have. Counting a slave as a full person FOR THAT PURPOSE would have rewarded the slave states for having slaves. Instead, this compromise provision gave states an incentive to do away with slavery; they'd automatically increase their representation in Congress. Many did so, though not enough until 1865 (that was 143 years ago) when the 13th Amendment abolished slavery.
What the hell do they teach you Americans in your schools???
Have any of you EVER ACTUALLY READ your consitituion?? I will say I was incorrect. It says 3/5's instead o 1/4 but the point is still the same.
Article 1, Section 2 states,
"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this u ...[text shortened]... d by modern standards.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html
The provision has no more effect as there are no longer any "all other Persons". So what this moribund provision has to do with this discussion is quite beyond me. Seems like another Euro not knowing what he's talking about as regards the US.