I'm not arguing it, I said the constitution condoned slavery and it did. If you want to argue over the definition of the word condone then bring it on.
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to
1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control.
From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945, 13
million Jews and others, who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935.
From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981,
100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970.
From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million
"educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.
The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes,44 percent)
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.
(Note that, while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did
not.)
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed
robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12
months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the
ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has
decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in
"successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
You won't see this data on the evening news or hear our president,
governors or other politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and yes,
gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.
With guns, we are citizens.
Without them, we are victimss.
Someone tried to carjack me on my way home one night, so I whipped out my big tool and tapped the window with it at him, and yelled a graofftopictically correct description of what I was going to do with my big tool if he didnt vacate the space surrounding my car, sprinkled with a few profanities.
You need to try to understand the history of the article: The largest slave-owning states wanted to increase their number of representatives (and therefore their legislative power) by including in their population figures slaves who in fact had no power to determine who their representatives might be. In other words, slave owning voters wanted to have their cake and eat it as far as the 'voting' rights of slaves.
The 3/5ths rule was essentially a compromise necessary to pass the legislation. It has nothing to do with tolerating slavery.
In essence you're thinking of the constitution backwards: It is not an inflexible document that defines law for all time. It is a set of limits on what is and isn't allowed to be done, and can be changed if sufficient number of states vote for an amendment.
The reason for the 2nd amendment argument is that it is the legal basis for gun owners to protect their rights, requiring a much more convincing anti-gun majority to overturn. The existence of the 2nd amendment is the method, not the reason, by which people feel they should be allowed to keep their arms.
I agree with that assessment, but in my post I was responding to GC listing 'The Constitution says I'm allowed to have it.' as one of the reasons why he should be allowed to bear arms. Thats what riles me, that somehow that piece of paper holds the greatest importance.
"That piece of peper" is what has maintained our balance between freedom and anarchy, liberty and license, for the last 200+ years. It is the only thing protecting our nation from the 'tyrrany of the majority', and placing limits primarily on Government, rather than the governed.
I'd say it was written by some very forward thinking individuals. It is far more then a piece of paper, it is one of the conerstones of U.S. political philosophy. That's like saying "Eh, British Parliament is just a national social club".
Hmmmmm.... I can see where you might get that impression. No, I don't think anyone here sees it as 'the Word of God' from the holy mount, but we do view it (largely) as a national contract - that set of rules that we have agreed to live by, to keep our society civil.
I tend to view it more as a national covenant - something that gives definition to those things that we value as a culture, and the 'glue' that keeps our Melting Pot melted. That's why (unlike Sinai) the set of rules can be changed, but unlike changes via a simple majority vote, it ain't easy.
Remember, the USA is a republic, NOT a pure democracy.
Thats just it, its too damned inflexible. Leaving aside the gun debate for a moment, it makes necessary change difficult and allows the vocal minority to hide behind it.
I find myself using a modified bibilical phrase here, but the consitution was made for the people, not the people for the constitution, which is the way it seems to work today.
Yes, Because between that "piece of paper" as you call it and the Bill of Rights, you have the basic foundation for our political system just as Parliament sets the standard by which you are governed.
Are the Acts of Parliament just some busy work to appease your countries need for bureaucracy? My guess would be no, in the same way our Constitution is more then just a piece of paper.
But they weren't all set out in the 13th century, they change with the times, a new problem arises, it is dealt with. If one of those problems is a previous act it is dealt with just the same. No one holds any religious sentiment towards them.
Actually, that's what we have the Supreme Court for. Many "constitutional rights" we speak of in America are nowhere to be found in the Constitution, but are an interpretation of what is there, and it does change with time. The most recent example of this was Lawrence v Texas, which declared sodomy laws unconstitutional. This overturned a prior Supreme Court ruling, Bowers v Hardwick, which declared sodomy laws constitutional.
Things do change. It's not all about a piece of paper, it's also about the courts which interpret that "piece of paper".
All of which works massively differently than the average person thinks it does. Law and it's interpretation is vastly more complex than most people want to believe. Watching any of the numpty's on any court TV program attempting to make their case is well proof of that.
To stay with the theme of the constitution. I think the biggest problem at this moment in time is the fear any change in the constitution seems to conjure up in ordinary Americans minds. There seems to be a belief and a false one at that, that the constitution protects ordinary Americans from the misdeeds of your government. When it clearly doesn't. The truth of the matter is if your system of democratic governance is so corrupt or corruptible then you should be campaigning to change it for the better. Not hiding in the basement clutching a shot gun.