How did I know the 2nd would come up..........

 

Well, because it's widely debated. The wording seems to be open to interpretation, and personally, I think it was added in a time that was very different than today. I don't feel that the reasons the Amendment was written are the same reasons people fight so hard to keep it in it's original form today.

Why would we want to change our Constitution just because tiny Iceland is changing theirs?

Our Founnding Fathers created a document that can last as long nation lasts.

If there is a needed change there is a process for making such a change.

Too many do not understand the Constitution, because they do not know the history behind it, including Obama and his "negative rights". The Constitution was written in such a way that we have as much freedom as one would want, unless you want no government at all. Our Founding Fathers knew that a government with too much power was a government of tryanny. For that reason they gave government limited, but powerful powers and also denied government control over certain aspects of our lives. Leaving everything not mentioned in the hands of the states and/or the people. Why would you need any more freedom or a new document? Unless you think individuals are not smart enough to take care of theirselves and government needs to spell out eveything.

Obama's "negative rights" shows a lack of understanding of why the Constitution was written the way as we know it today. Obama believes there are rights out there that have been left out, but all our natural rights are already spelled out in the Constitution. The document gives us equality, after a couple of changes, but some people do not know what this equality actually means. It is about equality before the law and that all of us have the same chance to be free and achieve. It has been said before, it does not guarantee the outcome. Some want the outcome to guaranteed, that is not the purpose of the Constitution, nor should it ever be.

 

Who says we would want to do it because Iceland is changing theirs? Isn't the level of debate over the constitution in our own country, among our own citizens, enough to open the conversation for ourselves? I don't see anywhere that anyone has said that 'because' Iceland is changing theirs, we should as well.

 

You say that too many do not understand the constitution because they do not know the history behind it. But the fact is, many DO understand the history behind it, and feel that there are certain parts of it that should be scrutinized because of the history behind it. Case in point, the 2nd Amendment.

 

And I don't think scrutinizing the constitution is a bad thing. It should actually be done frequently, as things change. There is no way you can argue that some of the freedoms we enjoy now are not taken advantage of in a way that our founding fathers could absolutely have NEVER imagined.

Well, because it's widely debated. The wording seems to be open to interpretation, and personally, I think it was added in a time that was very different than today. I don't feel that the reasons the Amendment was written are the same reasons people fight so hard to keep it in it's original form today.

 

 

What do you feel the original intent was in that case?

 

I am sure we have discussed this before, but I figured a respectful question instead of the knee jerk "You're trying to take our guns" response would be beneficial here.

What do you feel the original intent was in that case?

 

I am sure we have discussed this before, but I figured a respectful question instead of the knee jerk "You're trying to take our guns" response would be beneficial here.

 

Why thank you! :lol:

 

I feel the original intent was to ensure that the government couldn't tyrannize the citizenship by disarming the citizens, depriving them not only their opportunity to defend themselves, but of providing for themselves.

There is a process to change the constitution through amendment. It's a difficult and time consuming process as it should be. I'm very strongly of the opinion that if it ain't broke don't fix it and I don't think it's broke. In this day and age of entitlement can you even imagine the kind of "rights" the fringe on both sides would try to add. Amendments can be repealed so if there is an up swell of support to repeal and re-write the 2nd amendment then by all means go for it.

There is a process to change the constitution through amendment. It's a difficult and time consuming process as it should be. I'm very strongly of the opinion that if it ain't broke don't fix it and I don't think it's broke. In this day and age of entitlement can you even imagine the kind of "rights" the fringe on both sides would try to add. Amendments can be repealed so if there is an up swell of support to repeal and re-write the 2nd amendment then by all means go for it.

 

I agree with All Tell. The Constitution is a living document with a process for change/amendment in place. I like the fact that it is very difficult to change the Constitution. It ensures that change is clearly beneficial when enacted. I am very leery of any attempt at changing our Constitution in this age of radicalism and extreme partisanship.

I agree with All Tell. The Constitution is a living document with a process for change/amendment in place. I like the fact that it is very difficult to change the Constitution. It ensures that change is clearly beneficial when enacted. I am very leery of any attempt at changing our Constitution in this age of radicalism and extreme partisanship.

 

Ahhh...but yet...I've made that argument, and been told that I am wrong. I agree with All Tell as well....up until the point "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." I think that it could be amended for clarity, amended for today's circumstances.

 

But, I also agree with you description of the political climate these days. If the constitution were to be amended, in any part, for any reason, I would not be in favor of the action if motivated for political gain.

Why thank you! :lol:

 

I feel the original intent was to ensure that the government couldn't tyrannize the citizenship by disarming the citizens, depriving them not only their opportunity to defend themselves, but of providing for themselves.

 

Here is an early view of the amendment. Its wording is more direct as to the operative phrase since it is first. Is this better?

 

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."