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.
Thanks for taking my quote out of context (and the heads up in the other thread is appreciated).
My comment was actually about keeping social media platforms of a certain size (to be determined) from censoring undesirable speech and thus creating an echo chamber...so literally the exact opposite of what you claimed here. My comment was an attempt to actually bolster free speech by keeping large, impactful social media platforms from becoming biased one way or the other and allowing anyone to spew whatever ill conceived or incorrect notion they want without fear of retaliation in the form of outright censorship or being banned from site administration. I don't claim to know how this would be done, however.
If I misread your reasoning, I apologize. You did write those words, though, and you're not the first.
It's the idea I started a thread about, not your personal position, which is why your quote wasn't attributed to you and why I started a new thread about it, instead of just responding to you. So it doesn't really matter if you personally meant something else by that or not, for the purposes of this thread.
Btw zenith32 I rated your first post positively, because I wanted to support you when you complained someone had put words in your mouth. Don't do to others...
It was not my intention to put words into someone else's mouth, only to prompt an explanation where none was originally given. I had not considered the actual reason given and actually can agree with that train of thought.
If I misread your reasoning, I apologize. You did write those words, though, and you're not the first.
It's the idea I started a thread about, not your personal position, which is why your quote wasn't attributed to you and why I started a new thread about it, instead of just responding to you. So it doesn't really matter if you personally meant something else by that or not, for the purposes of this thread.
No harm done, and this has been an interesting thread. I responded mostly on the off-chance that someone else had seen this thread and found my original comment and arrived at the same thought that is in the starting post.
To further expand on my own thought process for the purposes of this thread, I don't usually take the words of the Founding Fathers as some sort of gospel (like a number of people I know do...) and given how they constructed a way to change the structure of our government to change with time, I do like to think that they at least had the foresight to understand that change is not only necessary but inevitable and to fight against this is an exercise in futility. If technology and our way of life has changed so drastically from what was the norm 250 years ago, then should our government not reflect our modern day life instead of how things used to be? I personally think it should, and if that requires an update to the Amendments, whatever those updates might need to be, then that's what should be done.
this was posted in a thread on here. The poster was responding to a comment about the 1st amendment and free speech online:
That got me thinking. We've heard similar language before, but i haven't seen anyone tackle the issue on its own.
This person thinks that we need to change the constitution to allow the government to determine which speech is permissible, and which speech isn't. This is an unbelievably awful idea for what should be really obvious reasons, but there it is, and it's not the first time we've seen it suggested.
Do you think that the 1st amendment needs an overhaul? What about the others? Do we still need the 3rd amendment, and if not, is there any reason to repeal it? Of course, the 2nd amendment has been contentious for a long time.
Which amendments need to be "overhauled," and why?
The second amendment does make sense to overhaul (even though it will never happen). It was originally designed for a standing militia only.
The usual fib from the usual suspects who want to get rid of the second amendment.
If the framers had wanted the 2nd to apply only to militia members, they'd have written that into the amendment. But they didn't. They simply names militias as ONE of the reasons the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
And they way they wrote the amendment, if all militias would vanish overnight, the people's right would STILL be sacrosanct - no govt could infringe it, period. Militias were mentioned merely as an explanation, not as a necessary condition.
This has been explained to Mr. Lekrii several times in this forum. He seems to have the habit of waiting for a period of time after having it explained to him, usually measured in weeks, and then announcing the same fib again, as thought it had become true. He's apparently hoping that normal people would have forgotten by then, the drubbing he has repeatedly taken on the subject. It's a common tactic used by big-govt pushers who can't back up their statements and agenda.
Quote:
Clarifying that would make this country dramatically safer.
The 2nd amendment needs no "clarification". We merely need to teach liberals how to read and speak English. And for liberals who keep doing what Mr. Lekrii does, we need to teach them not to lie - admittedly a far more difficult task.
This was posted in a thread on here. The poster was responding to a comment about the 1st Amendment and free speech online:
That got me thinking. We've heard similar language before, but I haven't seen anyone tackle the issue on its own.
This person thinks that we need to change the Constitution to allow the government to determine which speech is permissible, and which speech isn't. This is an unbelievably awful idea for what should be really obvious reasons, but there it is, and it's not the first time we've seen it suggested.
Do you think that the 1st Amendment needs an overhaul? What about the others? Do we still need the 3rd Amendment, and if not, is there any reason to repeal it? Of course, the 2nd Amendment has been contentious for a long time.
Which amendments need to be "overhauled," and why?
Of course not. If anything, we need better enforcement of censoring.
Biden will go down in history as the greatest president EVER!! Until Harris becomes President. Then SHE will take his place as the greatest president, EVER! America voted for these greats, fair and square! Give 'em time to Bring Back Better!
The usual fib from the usual suspects who want to get rid of the second amendment.
If the framers had wanted the 2nd to apply only to militia members, they'd have written that into the amendment. But they didn't. They simply names militias as ONE of the reasons the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
And they way they wrote the amendment, if all militias would vanish overnight, the people's right would STILL be sacrosanct - no govt could infringe it, period. Militias were mentioned merely as an explanation, not as a necessary condition.
This has been explained to Mr. Lekrii several times in this forum. He seems to have the habit of waiting for a period of time after having it explained to him, usually measured in weeks, and then announcing the same fib again, as thought it had become true. He's apparently hoping that normal people would have forgotten by then, the drubbing he has repeatedly taken on the subject. It's a common tactic used by big-govt pushers who can't back up their statements and agenda.
The 2nd amendment needs no "clarification". We merely need to teach liberals how to read and speak English. And for liberals who keep doing what Mr. Lekrii does, we need to teach them not to lie - admittedly a far more difficult task.
You missed my point, it seems. The wording mentions a militia for a very specific reason. The exact meaning is NOT clear, given we're still arguing about it centuries later. What we do know, however, is that recreationally owning guns does not make anyone safer. Modifying the 2nd amendment to remove any debate around what it actually means would stop the right wing from getting panicky about someone 'taking their guns', and would make the country safer.
A firm answer to a vague amendment is always a good thing.
As polarized as our country is, and given what it takes to actually change something like that, it's a little pointless to even have the conversation.
The second amendment does make sense to overhaul (even though it will never happen). It was originally designed for a standing militia only. Clarifying that would make this country dramatically safer.
Why not instead just add an additional amendment making drugs and gangs illegal? That way the gangs will have nothing to sell and will dissolve. Considering gangs\drugs are involved in about 3/4's of gun violence that would have an enormous immediate impact.
Now sure, both of our arguments hold the same logical error but at least this way we don't impinge the rights of others trying to put a non-fixing bandaid on a symptom of an underlying problem.
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.
