Should we amend the constitution to clarify freedom of religion, speech, and the right to bear arms? (weapons, racism)

[Stephan A Smith]

Should we amend the constitution to clarify freedom of religion, speech, and the right to bear arms?

No and hell no. Freedom is supposed to be freedom, not freedom under certain circumstances.

Always remember the government you trust to enforce rules you like against people you don't like will someday be the government run by the other side with the same ability to enforce what they want against your will.

Slippery slope.

[ClaraC]

Originally Posted by Stephan A Smith

Should we amend the constitution to clarify freedom of religion, speech, and the right to bear arms?

No and hell no. Freedom is supposed to be freedom, not freedom under certain circumstances.

Always remember the government you trust to enforce rules you like against people you don't like will someday be the government run by the other side with the same ability to enforce what they want against your will.

Slippery slope.

Well, how do you feel about birthright citizenship for babies born on American soil, to illegal residents who hopped the border to deliver an anchor baby?

Now does it seem like taking a second look at a few of the tenets of the Constitution might be a good idea?

[Artisan10]

Originally Posted by ClaraC

Everything except the 2A. That's the only hitch in the giddyup.

The Second Amendment doesn't need to be changed. The Constitution already allows for criminals to lose their right to own guns through due process.

Amendment 5
No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment 14
...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[jbgusa]

Originally Posted by bawac34618

Most of the polarization in our country right now go back to division on these three issues. Until we settle these questions, I don't think there's any pathway back to civility in our politics. Would you support amending the constitution to clarify these issues and why or why not? What are your positions on them?

Amending the Constitution is not something to be done lightly. My view is that amendments should be rare and for compelling purposes. In general I find the Federal courts to be a quality institution well able to navigate these areas.

Originally Posted by bawac34618

Religion: The left believes in absolute, two-way separation of church and state. The right believes in one-way separation, in which the government should stay out of the church but that the church can and should have a voice in how society is governed. Which is it? This question is the cornerstone of our culture war, which is the elephant in the room that impacts almost every political issue we currently face.

I generally go for a fairly strict separation, and oppose the right on this one. That being said, I have no problem with currency saying "In G-d We Trust" or the Pledge of Allegiance adding "Under G-d." We are a Judeo-Christian society. It's just a fact.

Originally Posted by bawac34618

Speech: Both sides hold different standards for speech they agree with vs that they don't. There's no way to defend either party on this. That said, are there certain things that are over the line, especially when it comes to speech that could put others in danger? What about hate speech?

Danger speech prohibition, yes. Hate speech, probably allow and allow the speakers to show themselves losers. Justice Louis D. Brandeis most memorably captured the essence of the counterspeech doctrine in his concurring opinion in Whitney v. California (1927) (link). He wrote:

Originally Posted by Justice Brandeis,concurring in Whitney v. California

If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.

I feel fairly strongly on this. Even though I am a radical left-winger this is not a left-right issue to me.

Originally Posted by bawac34618

Right to bear arms: The right believes in an absolute right to bear arms no matter the cost to society or human life. The left believes that changing times require changing perspectives and what worked in the 18th century may not be the best for today. I personally can see the arguments for both, but we will never settle this issue with the Second Amendment as it's currently written.

I don't feel too strongly on this issue. I think some regulation of gun ownership is needed, but I feel that small businesspeople running 24 hour businesses should have ready access to guns.

[ClaraC]

Originally Posted by Artisan10

The Second Amendment doesn't need to be changed. The Constitution already allows for criminals to lose their right to own guns through due process.

Amendment 5
No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment 14
...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This is the same argument that victims of domestic violence threats rail against.

Sorry ma'am, he's only made it pretty clear to you he'll kill you. Nothing we can do here. When he kills you, we'll react, and rest assured in your grave we'll prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by ClaraC

Everything except the 2A. That's the only hitch in the giddyup.

No, 2A was also written perfectly. Thus it endures century after century.

[ClaraC]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

No, 2A was also written perfectly. Thus it endures century after century.

Let's do a little refresher of history. I'm betting you know this, but let's just start by agreeing with this:

In 1775, Paul Revere and William Dawes (who few have heard of, but that's a discussion for a different day) rode through the colony alerting the families who were sleeping in their beds that "The British Are Coming!" in the wee hours. Banging on doors, rousing the well-regulated volunteer militia that they had organized for such a time as this, informing the militia that Revere and Dawes had learned that the British were planning a morning attack.

It was extremely successful. (On the part of Revere, anyway, somehow Dawes wasn't able to rouse the same response which might be why we haven't heard of him). When the British arrived, the militia was completely ready to face them, and the surprise attack the British wanted was quashed. The militia was held in very high regard, and it was the fact that the volunteer citizen militia was mobilized in a matter of hours was first in the minds of the framers of the Constitution in 1787.

And it was thus, that 2A was written:

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.


The framers of the constitution remembered well how the well-regulated militia had been crucial to the formation of the United States of America with their defense of the colonies just 12 years prior. It seems unbelievable that the framers imagined with this amendment, they were giving rights to gang members with AR15s to rule the streets of our cities some 230 years later.

Seems they would have taken a little more care to be clear with their intent.

[Artisan10]

Originally Posted by ClaraC

This is the same argument that victims of domestic violence threats rail against.

Sorry ma'am, he's only made it pretty clear to you he'll kill you. Nothing we can do here. When he kills you, we'll react, and rest assured in your grave we'll prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.

Infringing on innocent people's right to protect themselves doesn't take guns out of the hands of criminals.

[Artisan10]

Originally Posted by ClaraC

Let's do a little refresher of history. I'm betting you know this, but let's just start by agreeing with this:

In 1775, Paul Revere and William Dawes (who few have heard of, but that's a discussion for a different day) rode through the colony alerting the families who were sleeping in their beds that "The British Are Coming!" in the wee hours. Banging on doors, rousing the well-regulated volunteer militia that they had organized for such a time as this, informing the militia that Revere and Dawes had learned that the British were planning a morning attack.

It was extremely successful. (On the part of Revere, anyway, somehow Dawes wasn't able to rouse the same response which might be why we haven't heard of him). When the British arrived, the militia was completely ready to face them, and the surprise attack the British wanted was quashed. The militia was held in very high regard, and it was the fact that the volunteer citizen militia was mobilized in a matter of hours was first in the minds of the framers of the Constitution in 1787.

And it was thus, that 2A was written:

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.


The framers of the constitution remembered well how the well-regulated militia had been crucial to the formation of the United States of America with their defense of the colonies just 12 years prior. It seems unbelievable that the framers imagined with this amendment, they were giving rights to gang members with AR15s to rule the streets of our cities some 230 years later.

Seems they would have taken a little more care to be clear with their intent.

The U.S. Constitution was written with the concept in mind that one person's rights end where another's begins.

It all boils down to to don't hurt other people and don't take their stuff.

[ClaraC]

Originally Posted by Artisan10

Infringing on innocent people's right to protect themselves doesn't take guns out of the hands of criminals.

Actually, yes, it could, by making it a little harder for people intent on violence to purchase a gun.