Sunday School

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Unseen,

You might as well repeal it since there are only two ways to amend the constitution,* neither one having a ghost of a chance of ever happening in the lifetime of anyone alive now.

* Under Article V of the Constitution, there are two ways to propose and ratify amendments to the Constitution. To propose amendments, two-thirds of both houses of Congress can vote to propose an amendment, or two-thirds of the state legislatures can ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. To ratify amendments, three-fourths of the state legislatures must approve them, or ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states must approve them. (source)

Uh, the Amendment proposal and ratification process is how you would repeal an Amendment, silly.

And you had better be very careful about using the Amendment process to curtail the exercise of Individuals Rights.

The last two attempts to do so by Constitutional Amendment were not such great shakes.

The first attempt was the Sixteenth Amendment that brought us the income tax–a system so nightmarish that it can be used against anyone and not even tax attorneys understand it.

And the second attempt was the Eighteenth Amendment which brought us Prohibitionism–which enforced the religious morality of Pentecostal Evangelicals, turned casual drinkers into outlaws, gave untold hoards of wealth to organized crime, and brought us now five generations of kids who think it’s hip, chic, and sexy to be damn gangsters.

An Amendment to repeal the Second Amendment would combined the worst of those other two Amendments with even worse features. You might as well repeal the entire Bill of Rights as well and forget you ever were a U.S. Citizen.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: Addendum

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Strega,

I don’t believe you need to repeal the Second Amendment. You could just clarify exactly what a well regulated militia is, and require States to adhere to the specific definition.

You are observant in noting the purpose given with The Second Amendment. However, there are a few things to remember:

Militia membership has already been defined, namely, in the modern day, it is every able-bodied Citizen.

We Can’t Ignore the “Militia” Clause of the Second Amendment
By: Tenth Amendment|Published on: Sep 15, 2018|Categories: 2nd Amendment

We Can’t Ignore the “Militia” Clause of the Second Amendment

Moreover, when Citizens’ Militias were first formed in the U.S., individual members brought their own arms, powder, ammunition, and maintenance supplies. Hence, exercising the right to keep and bear arms existed independently of the Citizens’ Militia and this right was exercised for purposes independent of Militia formation.

Finally, even with the Militia clause of The Second Amendment, and even if Citizens’ Militias no longer exist, the Individual Right to keep and bear arms is still recognized via The Ninth and Tenth Amendments:

Amendment Nine
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And Amendment Ten
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. (Emphasis mine.)

And nota bene, The Bill of Rights does not grant rights, but rather recognizes Individual Rights that pre-existed The Constitution and indeed all law.

The right to keep and bear arms is an extension of the right to own the fruits of one’s labor and exchange and the right of self-defense, both of which inhere in man’s nature as a rational being who must think, work, keep the results, and defend those acts and results against all who would violate them.

If you’re over 21 you can have a gun, carry a current license showing you passed a proficiency test and have your ownership details listed on a National database. Oh and maybe you carry liability insurance on the gun.

Although comprehensive walking-around insurance is probably highly recommended in todays absurdly litigious society, the moment one puts any condition upon an Individual Right of adults besides respecting the rights of others, then what you have is no longer a right, but a privilege and favor which the State may revoke at will, which makes the individual a slave of the State.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: Added "of adults". No children and dumb animals allowed in the debate

[DavisModerator]

We Can’t Ignore the “Militia” Clause of the Second Amendment
By: Tenth Amendment|Published on: Sep 15, 2018|Categories: 2nd Amendment

What a ghastly constitution.

[_Robert_Participant]

Davis wrote:

We Can’t Ignore the “Militia” Clause of the Second Amendment By: Tenth Amendment|Published on: Sep 15, 2018|Categories: 2nd Amendment

What a ghastly constitution.

The Spanish view of history, LOL. Is it not also ghastly how Spain adopted an official policy of forgetting about being a fascist dictatorship? After all, the country is dotted with more than 2,000 mass graves. In 1975, Franco got to die in his bed and was buried as a goddam hero. These people a little slow, perhaps?

Modern-day Spanish fascists tried to block his reburial in 2019 and then gave him the old Roman-Nazi salute. The country is still worshipping the Pope’s knob, but let’s just call it tradition, shall we?

 

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Davis,

You mean a “ghastly Constitution” that recognizes the Individual Right to Life, Liberty, Property, and Pursuit of happiness for everyone?. A “ghastly Constitution” that recognizes and reveals in things like this?

LGBTI gun group says membership has risen dramatically since Trump’s election
“It’s because of the election. They’re afraid the country is going back in time.”
https://www.sbs.com.au/voices/article/lgbti-gun-group-says-membership-has-risen-dramatically-since-trumps-election/wl1gal511

And, of course, this too:

Atheist Gun Owners

Atheist Gun Owners
by in atheism

All this looks Absolutely Fabulous from my perspective! 🔫 🏳️‍🌈 ⚛️ 🇺🇲 😊

[_Robert_Participant]

I think we have a misinterpretation of the US constitution, however if we are gonna have a Spaniard consistently bash the US’s contributions to the world; I would like to see him acknowledge that his country’s legacy is murderous colonialism, the scourge of Catholicism that has cursed the Americas, 15th and 16th century slave trading and the advent of 20th century fascism lasting until 1975 in that country. I mean does it get any worse for someone up on a high horse?

[StregaModerator]

@_Robert_ it does get worse my friend. Look no further than my country of origin, The United Kingdom etc.

I feel very confident that my history, when faced with Spanish history, can comfortable say, “Hold my beer”.  (The British Museum is the loot storage and display organisation- and with over a thousand large display rooms, still 90% of the loot is in storage as there are not enough places to display them.)

However, the UK ‘constitution’ is the Magna Carta of 1297.

Obviously the Brits felt it was sort of getting outdated, so they used perpetually amending  judicial precedents to upgrade it. They do not point at ancient clauses of it, and demand ‘Rights’ based on a document that was agreed upon seven hundred or more years ago. That would be insane.

The US constitution, however, is not a ‘work in progress’ – it’s a flat unchanging set of directives based on people’s thoughts two centuries or more ago. The Supreme Court twists itself into pretzels to try to apply old thoughts to new circumstances.

In the end, a country has to decide whether it’s government is helping them or milking them. I don’t believe even a small number of the US population trust their government to do anything fairly or for the good of the people themselves. If you can’t trust your government, then you cling to old rule books.  The Constitution.

So no, Spain has every right to comment on the stultification of American law. And Britain too.

One has to wonder, however, what the gun-celebrating population might consider a successful way to eliminate mass shootings

No you can’t take our guns, so this is what we propose to solve the problem:-   *crickets*

[—Participant]

Looking up comparisons of national constitutions, I stumbled on an article ranking national stability. If you click on individual nations, you can see that ‘adventure’ was one of the ranking categories under which ‘sexy’ is a criterion.

Spain has a sexy rating of 48.0 while the US only has 11.8. Canada is down at 3.5 while the UK manages to slip down to 2.5. I think we can now see how nations are performing based on what really matters. (N.B. Brazil got a perfect 100.)

[UnseenParticipant]

@ Strega

“To Err is Human. However, to really fuck things up you need a superpower.”

Look at what Britain did to India (now India + Pakistan), the Caribbean, and elsewhere followed by the postwar United States.

Look at the misguided history of our wars since Korea. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.

The U.S. is virtually a paranoid armed camp, despite the fact that our geography makes a physical invasion a virtual impossibility and that any attack via intercontinental missiles would result in the absolute and total annihilation of the attackers.

Yet, we have 800+ bases all over the world whether the “hosts” really want us there or not. We get whatever consent we get with a Godfather-like “offer they can’t refuse.”

Because of us, the world is totally out-of-kilter.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by  Unseen.

[jakelafortParticipant]

Here ya go Enco. It is not animated Loony Tunes but it speaks to the beauty of the Constitution.

[DavisModerator]

There are plenty of problems with the Spanish constitution. And Spain (along with France, UK, the Netherlands and Portugal) did unspeakable things for centuries around the world and even until quite recently. Spain had a dictatorship until only a few decades ago and is an incredibly corrupt country. I don’t pretend to defend any of this and I don’t cry “oh no you are bashing me” if you point out things about my countries of origin (of which there are several) questioning it.

The UK has an entrenched class system, and by european standards has become relatively conservative, biggoted and a decaying nation. All the more reason I support Scottish independence.

Germany (where I was born) has certainly the most unspeakable history in the 20th century, one in which the overwhelming majority acknowledge and do not hide under the blanket denying the impact of what they have done.

Most developed countries have begun a reckoning with their past as well as current problems. The horrors of colonialism are studied in France, the Netherlands and Spain (a lot less in the UK). They have not reckoned with everything and I am happy to admit that. Spain has not properly confronted its dictatorial past and the legacy it has on today just as America has not even remotely begun to reckon with its past of slavery and the effect it has on today, but that is another story). These are both bad things. I am happy to admit them.

Canada has only partially begun to reckon with its abhorrent past with Native Canadians and its relatively minor dabble in slavery (seemingly easily forgotten because of its role in the underground railway). It also has a mechanism that makes it difficult to change its constitution though I must admit there is little I find ghastly in it.

I am happy to admit that the British constitution (it is only partly a constitution) is problematic, and that it should be changed. I don’t defend elements of the UK (or Spanish) system which I deem unreasonable just because that’s the way it is and it would be “hard to change”. Most countries have constitutions which are not that hard to change. America’s constitution requires 2 thirds of both houses, a presidential signature and 2 thirds of states to sign (a monumentally enormous barrier to change).

The American constitution is a template on which many elements were copied by many nations. This is a great thing, I am grateful they didn’t include many elements like a dysfunctional governmental system, enabling murderous gun culture and a freedom of speech line that can be so broadly interpreted it makes even placing relatively high limits on corporate donations (and thus extremely undue influence by large interests) extremely difficult to contain.

I recognise great things in the American constitution and how it inspired many admirable ones around the world. I find some elements of the constitution utterly ghastly and I am deeply saddened by most people’s apathy in doing anything to change it (or recognise how problematic it is).

Perhaps you can now put yourself in the place of religious people who get extremely outraged and offended when people question things they hold sacred. A constitution is a document, one that should be able to be changed. It should not be as dogmatic as it currently is and it should not be held under such regard as to question it should elicit wrath. It is a set of ideas (just as religion is). Most of the rest of developed world find elements of the constitution deranged. Consider reckoning with that instead of going “oh yeah well your country has problems too”. Of course it does. Keep this in mind next time you criticise religion and they say “oh yeah well atheists aren’t perfect”. Of course they are not.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by  Davis.
• This reply was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by  Davis.

[—Participant]

Canada has only partially begun to reckon with its abhorrent past with Native Canadians and its relatively minor dabble in slavery (seemingly easily forgotten because of its role in the underground railway).

I think one of the major differences is that we heavily institutionalized and codified anti-indigeneity. Slavery was more commonplace in Canadian history than people realize, but we didn’t make it a cornerstone of certain economies in the way they did down south. But you could definitely buy and sell people openly (you could even take out an advert in the news for it). Likewise for segregation. Racism in Canada is often more insidious which in many ways is worse because it’s difficult to confront and so easily erases itself from memory.

We have quite a few other fucked up bits of history. Like that time we refused Jewish people fleeing Nazi Germany and sent them back to die, or that time we stole everything from Canadians of Japanese descent and imprisoned them for no reason. The list goes on.

It also has a mechanism that makes it difficult to change its constitution though I must admit there is little I find ghastly in it.

While I have certain issues with it, the notable feature that no nation should ever seek to recreate is the notwithstanding clause. Albertan, Ontarian, and Quebecois governments have shown us why it should not exist. Mind you, it’s questionable if the Constitution Act would have been successful back in 82 without it.

[jakelafortParticipant]

Good god, man, so mature!

Davis that is.

Here is to not WORSHIPPING constitutions. Or maybe the religious twits are correct and Jesus was there when ours was signed.

Examined in its time i think the US constitution was pretty dope in that it did fundamentally acknowledge and address how power corrupts and needs checks. Also separation of church and state is a bare minimum requirement for any half assed government.

[Author]

Posts