Which amendments should be removed and why

Moogles said:

I'll never pretend to understand how the right to own guns is a constitutional right considering other first nations don't have it lmfao

Click to expand...

A lot of other first world nations don't have free speech, especially not to the degree of the US. Argumentum ad populum isn't a particularly convincing argument as to why we should or should not have something.

Keep in mind that the US began as an objection to the perceived failings and oversteps of the British Empire, the ultimate first world power at the time.

Well. Our freedom of speech is limited on many levels as well.

Anakin Linux said:

Well. Our freedom of speech is limited on many levels as well.

Click to expand...

Yes, but those are generally reasonable limitations, such as limitations on defamation or violent threats. There are a lot of first world countries with far more unreasonable limitations on speech. The point is that just because others do something a certain way doesn't make it right.

One does not simply remove an amendment. The only for an amendment to be repealed, or updated, is with another amendment, but I doubt we'll see a new one anytime soon due to the current events the U.S. government is issuing. I would say that the second amendment is outdated, but it would still need be important in case of a future zombie apocalypse caused by an epidemic, which is easier to deal with if firearms were easily available.

Alcohol is different than tabacco. When alcohol was made illegal, people began to make their own, which was often more potent and dangerous than store-bought alcohol. Additionally, alcohol was ingrained into society, for thousands of years humans have consumed it. The transition from being legal to illegal was too sudden and poorly executed.

Click to expand...

Plus I heard from a college presentation that certain alcohol can be healthy for your body.

Meanwhile, tobacco is easy to grow right, meaning it would be hard to grow dangerous illegal tobacco. Additionally, currently American society has made tobacco seem less safe, and has greatly diminished the amount of consumers for it. A transition to making tobacco illegal could probably be done in just a few years if there was a big enough push for it. Especially if weed was to be made legal.

Click to expand...

While true, but South Park has showed that tobacco shares an important influence to our history, and that tobacco companies aren't really the evil corporates they're being depicted by the anti-smoking media.

Maybe what he means is that the cigarette companies shouldn't be allowed to put 'fillers' in their products? It seems to me that there is more going on than just tobacco and paper.

Shh...
If you listen very closely, you can hear the founding fathers turning in their graves.

^ Maybe to the tobacco thing, but many of the founding fathers, Jefferson and his hodge-podge of political views included, advocated the idea that future generations of americans would change and shape the laws, ideals and customs of the country in accordance with the time period they lived in. The Constitution was not perfect when it was written, and Jefferson and co. knew that. That's why we have an amendment process, to adapt to changing political atmospheres and contemporary times.

"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." - Jefferson to H. Tompkinson (AKA Samuel Kercheval), July 12, 1816

Click to expand...

So if the argument is "we shouldn't change variable x in 2015 because in 1776 variable y was true", the founders disagree with you.

Much of the constitution was written as it is to help deter the possibility of an overpowering or repressive government, much like the one they sought to sever ties with. I'm not saying that the constitution should be wholey untampered with, however, we should be cautious of what our current actions will lead to and what consequences there may be.

None. Our founding fathers made the Constitutional Bill of Rights for a reason and If you remove ANY amendments from the Constitution it will completely destroy the United States as a nation, which will be the downfall of the nation. Once one is removed it obliterates our peace and prosperity leaving us with nothing. If the 2nd Amendment (not gonna happen EVER) were to be removed then it would make it that much easier for the government to take away our freedom of speech, religion, rights to a speedy trial, anything involving politics, etc. If one were to be removed, it's common sense that they will push to ban another, yet another, and so on until we are back at square one. Without any of those amendments there cannot and will not be any amendments.

Go ahead, ban guns and see what happens. Just don't come to me when I told you so after our government turns to tyranny and depopulates us by the millions. The 2nd Amendment is what's keeping American citizens as a whole safe. And don't come at me with that crime related bs because I'll tell you what.
1: It's mostly done by criminals; gangs, mafia, cartel, etc. Yeah, lets ban guns from the law abiding leaving only the criminals. Sounds like a fantastic plan. NOT.
2: Those mass shootings were done by people that have mental problems and it was illegal for them to purchase or have a gun in the first place proving if someone wants a gun they can and will get their hands on one. It's an inevitable process.

My point is. If someone want's a gun they will get it, law abiding or not. Chicago is on the verge of a gun ban and if you ask any gang banger how easy it is, they'll say it's like taking candy from a baby.. And that's with EXTREMELY STRICT GUN LAWS!!! I'll also say this.. Do you really think America's gonna give up their guns (or any Amendment for that matter) without a fight? Especially military vets or anyone who risked their life to keep you safe, I think not. Guns aren't just made for killing. Only the delusional think that, and only the delusional think a gun ban is actually gonna work.

I have a feeling that if the U.S. passed an admendment banning guns it'll end up the way Alcohol did (building a gun may be somewhat difficult but it's not impossible) considering it's part of our culture as a country.


Speaking of the founding father I feel we give them too much credit for the Bill of Rights...as they first passed the flawed Articles of Confederation. The Bill of Rights came as a response to those critical of the aritcles and is practically a compromise between those who wanted more centralized power and those who wanted limited government at the same time.

Though I've been hesitant to join in on the gun subject, I want to say that a compromise can be reached. This just seems like a good example.

The right to bear arms is one that should stay. It's both a staple of the Constitution, and even a part of American culture at this point. It's not necessarily about wanting a gun, though. You see, a gun is an ounce of prevention. Only in the wrong hands does it become a weapon.

The idea of illegalizing personal gun ownership is absurd. The idea of slightly regulating them is fair. Simply requiring households with minors to have gun safes, and people with behavioural disorders to take sufficient tests to prove themselves mentally fit would be enough. To further that, add the prerequisite of every gun made to have a safety switch that a child shouldn't be capable of tampering with. Modern technology is more than capable of making guns automatically lock into safety mode if the gun hasn't been discharged for x amount of time, too. That means there would be no forgetting to put them in safety mode.

And for Christ's sake, people. Stop making such a fuss about it.
The constant negative feedback from mainstream news and media sources is giving you an opposing opinion about something you don't entirely understand. And alternatively is giving a supporting opinion to those who purposefully go against the grain. Ultimately neither group is being responsible, and that's a dangerous thing when what we're talking about can so easily be fatal. No, guns are not weapons built for slaughter happy maniacs and extremists. No, guns are not God given tools of righteousness, used only for combating vile forces. Forget the entire allure of them, either way.