Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let me guess you're one of those who believe your values and yours alone are the one true are the one true American values.
And it's people who think like that who are the true traitors. They like jingoism, but forget the simple motto of the nation: E pluribus unum -- out of many, one.
Clearly you don't have an understanding of the concept of being a nation.
What makes the United States a nation?
For me, the most distinctive element the United States introduced to the idea of nationhood is one that is not blood-based. There is no "ethnic" American nationality - subscribe to its founding creed, expressed most clearly in the Declaration of Independence, and you belong.
It's also that open-ended definition of belonging that has made American culture so vibrant and such a world-beater. We can do something no blood-based nation can, namely, import and absorb cultural traditions from around the world and make them our own.
Putting conditions or waivers on that passage in the 14th Amendment puts us on the road to those old ethnic notions of "nationhood" we have in large part successfully resisted for nearly 250 years.
Clearly you don't have an understanding of the concept of being a nation.
Clearly you have a limited concept about being a nation. The US form is not the only format, and it is arrogant to think it cannot be improved. There are many healthy, functioning first world nations with cantons/counties/provinces which have different rules, sometimes quite dramatically, yet they still adhere to a central government with common defense & foreign policies. I suggest you educate yourself before making such a facile remark.
In order to do what you propose, it would not be possible under our current form of government. Amendments to the Constitution are applicable to ALL states, we don't get to pick and chose which parts of the Constitution we want to follow. That was tried once, didn't work out to good, see Civil War.
But supposing we could, if Arizona, New Mexico and Texas decided to adopt the 2nd but drop the 14th, and California went the other way, what would keep all of those coming into or born in California from moving on to any other state?
It would turn the US into the cold war Europe model. Each "State" would have borders, border controls, visa's, fences, etc.
Your fail to understand what I proposed. The 2nd Amendment would be modified, and all states would follow the Constitution - a constitution that delegates specific enumerated power (over arms) to each individual state. The lack of imagination on this thread is really quite comical. There is no ban on using the disjunctive in the Constitution believe it or not. Its not some magical untouchable document that cannot be written in any other way.
We already have state-specific rules without the country falling apart. Heck, Louisiana has a whole legal system based on Napoleonic code - which is characterized legally as an entirely separate system from English common law - which the remainder are. The apocalypse hasn't happened so far. Get this - some places issue driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants - and they drive through other states where they can't get such licenses! Again no civil war yet.
All we get is the deer-in-the-headlights attitude shown here. There is no inconsistency with the original intention of the Constitution in permitting states to make their own rules regarding certain things - if the Constitution permits it. A second Amendment which was reworded to permit each state to craft its own firearms regulation subject, for example, to a supermajority of its citizens? Really - you can't imagine a US where Alaska puts the right to bear arms in its state Constitution and where NY restricts firearms to strongly-permitted limited qualified groups, and RI bans them entirely, and all are valid under the Constitution. Guess what - it'd still be America.
Here's an off the cuff stab at it - probably has some issues but its for argument anyhoo:
"The federal government shall not pass any rule infringing on the right of a citizen to own and bear firearms (lets take the opportunity to remove the possibility of hand grenades since we are making it better - hand grenades are "arms") except that a state government may, by a supermajority of its citizens, pass a rule to limit or prohibit or permit the right of a citizen to own and bear firearms."
Each of those state firearm rules scenarios I mentioned above (AK, NY, RI) would be... Constitutional. You can even split it into two amendments,. One preventing the federal government from rulemaking on arms. One specifically empowering states to make rules on arms. If you don't think that situation already exists de facto in some form try to turning up in NYC with your AR-15 that you got an open carry permit for back home.
There is no real preemption issue. We already have nullification and the 10th amendment anyway.
Its one of the most polarizing issues in the US because you are trying to shoehorn two different cultures, largely split along urban/rural or red state/blue state lines - and yet if those two different geographic entities had their own rules on firearms because the reworded 2nd Amendment permitted it, it would work a whole let better. Not perfect, but better for sure. Although the paranoia & money power of the NRA would never permit such an Amendment to be even considered, if it passed most of the vitriol and polarization would die down. Everyone already knows they do things different in Alaska or TN than they do in Connecticut.
I can't help but think of the exasperated school teacher in the canteen in Pink Floyd's song (Another Brick in the Wall) who cannot conceive of the concept of a kid asking for dessert when he hasn't finished his meat. Brain does not compute. Incomprehensible. But yes - you can actually.
Clearly you have a limited concept about being a nation. The US form is not the only format, and it is arrogant to think it cannot be improved. There are many healthy, functioning first world nations with cantons/counties/provinces which have different rules, sometimes quite dramatically, yet they still adhere to a central government with common defense & foreign policies. I suggest you educate yourself before making such a facile remark.
Having lived internationally for a period, I've seen and lived where there was a very different form of nationhood. But when you moved from one province to another, you were still in that country. And that's the way it has been in the United States during my lifetime. However, there are some -- including right here on our forum -- who want to change that. Who want to give so much power to states that you might no longer think that you were in the same the country as you traveled around the country. There are those who want Texas or California to leave the nation. There are those who have even suggested that red states and blue states should be something other than "just states". I've noticed in a number of posts that you write well. Writing well from a technical standpoint does not equal effective critical thinking. Every American ought to feel comfortable and secure that whether they are in Alabama or New York that they are in the same country with relatively common laws, except where such laws need distinction. For example, laws regarding water resources need to be different in Louisiana than they are in Arizona. Laws about agriculture need to be different in North Dakota than they are in coastal Georgia. But we're either united or we're not...and I think we ought to be united and life our motto of "E Pluribus Unum".
Having lived internationally for a period, I've seen and lived where there was a very different form of nationhood. But when you moved from one province to another, you were still in that country. And that's the way it has been in the United States during my lifetime. However, there are some -- including right here on our forum -- who want to change that. Who want to give so much power to states that you might no longer think that you were in the same the country as you traveled around the country. There are those who want Texas or California to leave the nation. There are those who have even suggested that red states and blue states should be something other than "just states". I've noticed in a number of posts that you write well. Writing well from a technical standpoint does not equal effective critical thinking. Every American ought to feel comfortable and secure that whether they are in Alabama or New York that they are in the same country with relatively common laws, except where such laws need distinction. For example, laws regarding water resources need to be different in Louisiana than they are in Arizona. Laws about agriculture need to be different in North Dakota than they are in coastal Georgia. But we're either united or we're not...and I think we ought to be united and life our motto of "E Pluribus Unum".
Fair enough but I don't think that the coherence of the US as a country (despite NRA rhetoric) is based on the current wording of the 2nd Amendment. As I mentioned in the other post I made just now, we already have really quite different de facto gun rules in different parts of the country - and that works. Yes there does need to be a minimum collection of common rules & behaviors for nationhood, but the pretense that it'll all fall apart if different states have different gun rules is just a measure of how disproportionate and distorted gun-lobbying and gun-rights culture has been starting in the late 70s. We have an unquestioned belief in some circles that owning a gun is coterminous with being a real American. It wasn't this way in the 50s. People were way more reasonable, less polarized, about guns back then and Amending the Constitution that would have been at least possible - even if still a struggle. Of course, there were bigger problems some of the nation was trying to fix back then, and those things started to make ground in the 60s. We can still be united, and I think there'd be less disunity if the law of the land was that guns are fine for rural areas and should be limited in cities, or permissible in some states and highly restricted in others. I mean honestly, what does the guy in Connecticut care about people having guns in Mississippi? He doesn't. He's concerned to keep them out of his town. What prevents this situation? The current wording (and Supreme Ct. interpretation of course) of the 2nd.
As for critical thinking - I barely see it at all. I see concreted positions and regurgitation. Critical thinking about the Constitution is as rare as a two-tailed bobcat. Even though the founders explicitly put in the amendment process - and we have a bunch of amendments to boot - its revered as some untouchable rule book. I doubt half the people using the term "Amendment" realizes that it means a modification - a change - an attempt to correct and perfect further.
As for critical thinking - I barely see it at all. I see concreted positions and regurgitation. Critical thinking about the Constitution is as rare as a two-tailed bobcat. Even though the founders explicitly put in the amendment process - and we have a bunch of amendments to boot - its revered as some untouchable rule book. I doubt half the people using the term "Amendment" realizes that it means a modification - a change - an attempt to correct and perfect further.
Well, on that I think we are in agreement.
For example, when I hear that basic health care is not a right, my answer is we can make anything a right that we wish to. I tire of those who act as if the condition of the country in 1781 ought to dictate how we live 237 years later.
What? Of course! Some of the most basic American values are "leftie" values - the importance of free speech, religious tolerance, and so on.
Love your post.
Are you sure the leftists in Berkeley agree with your opinions?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
