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.
Interesting that you skip back 70 years to find your examples. Also interesting that you failed to acknowledge the progress made in that 70 years toward those issues, and who's responsible for making it happen.
I don't know where you got your world view, but you need to go back to them and demand compensation for the damage they've done. Your perception of conservatives is far beyond a caricature. Way worse than a stereotype. And the worst part? You seem to have intentionally taken all the worst claims collectively made against people you don't know, rolled them up into a ball and you're presenting that ball of BS as the typical conservative.
This thread went south fast. OP grenades his own creation. Nice job.
He/she sure did, by demanding unity and civility then making comments that are anything but. He/she doesn't even recognize their own hypocrisy.
Last edited by Ex New Yorker; 06-29-2021 at 07:21 PM..
We should not touch one word, one letter in our Constitution while this woke insanity holds influence in our society. If we let their pious little noses in to the tent they will barge in and destroy everything. Amending our Constitution is an endeavor for cooler heads, not inflamed passions.
That's exactly why it's hard to do. Our society must be in agreement - proper agreement, not coerced - before changes can be made.
A lot of people would like to see a Constitutional Convention. BAD IDEA. These people have already figured out how to exploit it, while you and I are trying to convince people that they even can.
In the world of recovery, you're told not to make any major decisions until you've been sober for at least a year. There are time tested and proven reasons for that suggestion. The likelihood that you'll make a good decision while dealing with the chaos of starting to deal with an addiction is very low.
Our society is in chaos. No major decisions should be made until things have settled down.
Can you show me one example of a gun that got up by itself, consciously pointed its muzzle at an intended victim, and pulled its own trigger? I don't even recall that ever happening even in a Stephen King novel. When will you leftists actually blame the root cause of the gun violence death? The man or woman who pulled the trigger?
Yes, but the liberal doctrine is, if the gun wasn't there, people wouldn't be shot and killed.
True, they wouldn't be shot, but another weapon would soon take it's place.
There is no way in this world to stop people from killing one another.
If you manage to live without being taken out, that is the luck of the draw.
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?
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.
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?
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.
The Constitution is not the problem.
This kind of thinking is.
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?
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.
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?
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.
"to clarify". NOTHING needs to be clarified.
One of the beauties of the Constitution IS ITS CLARITY and simplicity. We also have the quotes and writings from the writers which EXPLAINS what their intentions are.
Even an 8th grader can understand it.
"The Constitution contains 4,543 words, including the signatures and has four sheets, 28-3/4 inches by 23-5/8 inches each. It contains 7,591 words including the 27 amendments.
A hundreds words are not need to say simple meanings.
Even the most meaningless single law today is THOUSANDS of words.
Only those who do NOT agree with something in the Constitution want to argue what is NOT what it says.
You think we need to "amend the Constitution" to CLARIFY the meaning of the words SHALL, NO, ABRIDGING, PROHIBITING, FREEDOM
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
How should we "amend these 45 words for "clarification"?
Religious Freedom doesn't mean that Religion runs Society - it just means that People have an ABSOLUTE RIGHT and FREEDOM to worship (or not) as they please. Those who worship and those who don't choose to worship have exactly the same Rights and Freedoms - including voting for their chosen representatives and to "petition the Government".
How do you think we should CLAiRIFY these words? Necessary, Security, Free, RIGHT, SHALL NOT, infringed. It's a total of 27 Words
Amendment II
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.
Notice it doesn't mention Cannons at all, it doesn't mention any type of "arms" or any restrictions on the Right to Bear (that means own/carry). It does mean that we have this Amendment because it is NECESSARY to a FREE STATE. Infringed means to VIOLATE as in "Shall not be violated"
Anyone at all who wants that removed is not interested in a FREE STATE ..... PERIOD
I think we have a couple of choices here -
1). Go with what we have and what has given us Freedoms that no other Nation has. It's stood the Test of Time due to it's simplicity and common sense.
2). Tear it all up and Re-Group.
"Notice it doesn't mention Cannons at all, it doesn't mention any type of "arms""
Private citizens owned cannons at the time. They ALSO owned warships. the writers made no, zero, zilch, mention of the citizens NOT being allowed to own them. Which speaks for itself.
You think we need to "amend the Constitution" to CLARIFY the meaning of the words SHALL, NO, ABRIDGING, PROHIBITING, FREEDOM
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
How should we "amend these 45 words for "clarification"?
Religious Freedom doesn't mean that Religion runs Society - it just means that People have an ABSOLUTE RIGHT and FREEDOM to worship (or not) as they please. Those who worship and those who don't choose to worship have exactly the same Rights and Freedoms - including voting for their chosen representatives and to "petition the Government".
How do you think we should CLAiRIFY these words? Necessary, Security, Free, RIGHT, SHALL NOT, infringed. It's a total of 27 Words
Amendment II
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.
Notice it doesn't mention Cannons at all, it doesn't mention any type of "arms" or any restrictions on the Right to Bear (that means own/carry). It does mean that we have this Amendment because it is NECESSARY to a FREE STATE. Infringed means to VIOLATE as in "Shall not be violated"
Anyone at all who wants that removed is not interested in a FREE STATE ..... PERIOD
I think we have a couple of choices here -
1). Go with what we have and what has given us Freedoms that no other Nation has. It's stood the Test of Time due to it's simplicity and common sense.
2). Tear it all up and Re-Group. I Vote for Keep the Constitution, those that what to get rid of it OR "clarify" it to suit an Agenda should think long and hard about Reaping and Sowing.
"You think we need to "amend the Constitution" to CLARIFY the meaning of the words SHALL, NO, ABRIDGING, PROHIBITING, FREEDOM""
The WRITERS already clarified EVERYTHING with their quotes, discussions and papers they wrote on the subjects.
The problem is those who do NOT agree width what they wrote in the Constitution.
Note they seldom actually try to AMEND the Constitution via the Amendment process. They try to get their way by passing UN-Constitutional laws.
Then use the Supreme Court, when they hold the majority on the court, to agree with them and rule in their favor.
"Notice it doesn't mention Cannons at all, it doesn't mention any type of "arms""
Private citizens owned cannons at the time. They ALSO owned warships. the writers made no, zero, zilch, mention of the citizens NOT being allowed to own them. Which speaks for itself.
Disingenuous argument. Privateers had cannon and warships. They no longer exist. Mainly because military and law enforcement are well armed and plentiful.
It sometimes feels that people view the framers as all knowing and almost god like beings. They knew the future and attended to happenings of 200 years hence with their pronouncements. Sure a lot of it is great stuff, but seriously, treating them as though they are carved in stone commandments is a religious position.
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.
