Federal Judge: U.S. Constitution Is Outdated, Judges Should Stop Studying It

a reply to: neo96

Not sure what your problem is with recycling ideas

I think maybe you think your way of thinking should never be questioned or contested

What would that system look like exactly?

:-)

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: neo96

Any right that requires you to take extraordinary measures to access it is no right at all,

Does it take an extraordinary measure for you ( or most people, for that matter) to access (buy or bear) a firearm?

It does in quite a few states. Not to mention that as a Kentucky resident, if I travel to California, Illinois, or New York I'm effectively stripped of my right to bear arms.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
The whole "constitution is outdated" argument is one of the most ignorant arguments against the constitution there is. Do some folks really believe that when writing the constitution they weren't smart enough to realize that innovation happens? Some folks want to apply critical thinking to the topic, so let's do it.

Of course the writers of the constitution didn't know, or even could've known, what kind of advancements would be made. Maybe, just maybe, it's the whole reason they wrote a few of the amendments in an all encompassing way. It was by purpose the words were written in "vague" way. So no matter what breakthroughs, innovations, or technological advancements might be made, rights remain intact.

There's no way that the founding members could've predicted the internet for instance. That's why the first doesn't just say newspapers and letters. There's no way the founding members could've predicted assault weapons. That's why the second doesn't just say flintlock pistols and black powder rifles.

All encompassing is just that, all encompassing. The whole argument stating that the founding fathers just couldn't have known just doesn't float. It's a pathetic argument.

But women and blacks were not allowed to vote, and that is ok with you?

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: neo96

Any right that requires you to take extraordinary measures to access it is no right at all,

Does it take an extraordinary measure for you ( or most people, for that matter) to access (buy or bear) a firearm?

It does in quite a few states. Not to mention that as a Kentucky resident, if I travel to California, Illinois, or New York I'm effectively stripped of my right to bear arms.

Just curious. How often do you do that?

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: neo96

I was pretty specific about singling out the political contribution implications allowed by corporate personhood.

I didn't realize you were supportive of unlimited money being injected into elections by corporations and Unions.

Nah just a person that actually bothered to READ citizens united.

The principles articulated by the Supreme Court in the case have also been extended to for-profit corporations, labor unions and other associations. [2][3]

en.wikipedia.org...

NO ONE should be trying to buy politicians.

The PEOPLE should not be selling their VOTES to either the HIGHEST or LOWEST bidder.

And if you REALLY wanted to get the money out of politics.

END social programs that are used to buy votes.

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: neo96

Any right that requires you to take extraordinary measures to access it is no right at all,

Does it take an extraordinary measure for you ( or most people, for that matter) to access (buy or bear) a firearm?

It does in quite a few states. Not to mention that as a Kentucky resident, if I travel to California, Illinois, or New York I'm effectively stripped of my right to bear arms.

My heart f'n breaks for you.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: neo96

Any right that requires you to take extraordinary measures to access it is no right at all,

Does it take an extraordinary measure for you ( or most people, for that matter) to access (buy or bear) a firearm?

It does in quite a few states. Not to mention that as a Kentucky resident, if I travel to California, Illinois, or New York I'm effectively stripped of my right to bear arms.

Just curious. How often do you do that?

Does it matter? Just once is enough. You know... rights and all.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: neo96

Not sure what your problem is with recycling ideas

I think maybe you think your way of thinking should never be questioned or contested

What would that system look like exactly?

:-)

In two words?

CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.

Not a democracy where the RIGHTS of the people are determined by a mere 51 votes.

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: neo96

Any right that requires you to take extraordinary measures to access it is no right at all,

Does it take an extraordinary measure for you ( or most people, for that matter) to access (buy or bear) a firearm?

It does in quite a few states. Not to mention that as a Kentucky resident, if I travel to California, Illinois, or New York I'm effectively stripped of my right to bear arms.

Just curious. How often do you do that?

Does it matter? Just once is enough. You know... rights and all.

Do you belong to a well regulated militia?

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: EternalSolace
The whole "constitution is outdated" argument is one of the most ignorant arguments against the constitution there is. Do some folks really believe that when writing the constitution they weren't smart enough to realize that innovation happens? Some folks want to apply critical thinking to the topic, so let's do it.

Of course the writers of the constitution didn't know, or even could've known, what kind of advancements would be made. Maybe, just maybe, it's the whole reason they wrote a few of the amendments in an all encompassing way. It was by purpose the words were written in "vague" way. So no matter what breakthroughs, innovations, or technological advancements might be made, rights remain intact.

There's no way that the founding members could've predicted the internet for instance. That's why the first doesn't just say newspapers and letters. There's no way the founding members could've predicted assault weapons. That's why the second doesn't just say flintlock pistols and black powder rifles.

All encompassing is just that, all encompassing. The whole argument stating that the founding fathers just couldn't have known just doesn't float. It's a pathetic argument.

But women and blacks were not allowed to vote, and that is ok with you?

Pathetic statement. Rights were extended in that case. Not restricted or taken away. Nice try.

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: neo96

Any right that requires you to take extraordinary measures to access it is no right at all,

Does it take an extraordinary measure for you ( or most people, for that matter) to access (buy or bear) a firearm?

It does in quite a few states. Not to mention that as a Kentucky resident, if I travel to California, Illinois, or New York I'm effectively stripped of my right to bear arms.

Just curious. How often do you do that?

Does it matter? Just once is enough. You know... rights and all.

I other words you are beaking about something that doesn't even apply to you. Love Kentucky. My daughter did. Leave others rights to themselves. Too damn much nosiness going on.

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: neo96

Any right that requires you to take extraordinary measures to access it is no right at all,

Does it take an extraordinary measure for you ( or most people, for that matter) to access (buy or bear) a firearm?

It does in quite a few states. Not to mention that as a Kentucky resident, if I travel to California, Illinois, or New York I'm effectively stripped of my right to bear arms.

Just curious. How often do you do that?

Does it matter? Just once is enough. You know... rights and all.

Do you belong to a well regulated militia?

Who makes up a militia? The people. Can't really form a militia with unarmed citizens can you?

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: neo96

Any right that requires you to take extraordinary measures to access it is no right at all,

Does it take an extraordinary measure for you ( or most people, for that matter) to access (buy or bear) a firearm?

The infamous BACKGROUND check that did not exist for over 225 YEARS.

ATF FORM 4473 has to be filled out, and ONLY after passing a given set of criteria written by the STATE a person MiGHT get to practice their RIGHT.

ONLY if they have lived a PERFECT little life.

Compare that to this 'false' equivalency of ANY ONE that wants to get an abortion.

NADAA,ZILCH, absolutely NOTHING from RESTRICTING their RIGHT.

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: EternalSolace
The whole "constitution is outdated" argument is one of the most ignorant arguments against the constitution there is. Do some folks really believe that when writing the constitution they weren't smart enough to realize that innovation happens? Some folks want to apply critical thinking to the topic, so let's do it.

Of course the writers of the constitution didn't know, or even could've known, what kind of advancements would be made. Maybe, just maybe, it's the whole reason they wrote a few of the amendments in an all encompassing way. It was by purpose the words were written in "vague" way. So no matter what breakthroughs, innovations, or technological advancements might be made, rights remain intact.

There's no way that the founding members could've predicted the internet for instance. That's why the first doesn't just say newspapers and letters. There's no way the founding members could've predicted assault weapons. That's why the second doesn't just say flintlock pistols and black powder rifles.

All encompassing is just that, all encompassing. The whole argument stating that the founding fathers just couldn't have known just doesn't float. It's a pathetic argument.

But women and blacks were not allowed to vote, and that is ok with you?

Pathetic statement. Rights were extended in that case. Not restricted or taken away. Nice try.

They were restricted in 1787, what part of that do you right wing asshats not understand, they were restricted. Idiot much?

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: neo96

Any right that requires you to take extraordinary measures to access it is no right at all,

Does it take an extraordinary measure for you ( or most people, for that matter) to access (buy or bear) a firearm?

It does in quite a few states. Not to mention that as a Kentucky resident, if I travel to California, Illinois, or New York I'm effectively stripped of my right to bear arms.

Just curious. How often do you do that?

Does it matter? Just once is enough. You know... rights and all.

I other words you are beaking about something that doesn't even apply to you. Love Kentucky. My daughter did. Leave others rights to themselves. Too damn much nosiness going on.

I have the right to travel to any state I please at any given time I want. I also have the right to not have rights infringed upon. Yep... too much nosiness goes on. It's no one's business but my own if I have a firearm on my person. Leave my rights to myself.

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: neo96

Any right that requires you to take extraordinary measures to access it is no right at all,

Does it take an extraordinary measure for you ( or most people, for that matter) to access (buy or bear) a firearm?

It does in quite a few states. Not to mention that as a Kentucky resident, if I travel to California, Illinois, or New York I'm effectively stripped of my right to bear arms.

Just curious. How often do you do that?

Does it matter? Just once is enough. You know... rights and all.

Do you belong to a well regulated militia?

Who makes up a militia? The people. Can't really form a militia with unarmed citizens can you?

Can you send me a copy of the regulations?

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: neo96

Any right that requires you to take extraordinary measures to access it is no right at all,

Does it take an extraordinary measure for you ( or most people, for that matter) to access (buy or bear) a firearm?

The infamous BACKGROUND check that did not exist for over 225 YEARS.

Ok. Go out and shoot a Black person and see what those 225 year old words have to say at your criminal trial. This isn't frickin rocket science.

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: EternalSolace
The whole "constitution is outdated" argument is one of the most ignorant arguments against the constitution there is. Do some folks really believe that when writing the constitution they weren't smart enough to realize that innovation happens? Some folks want to apply critical thinking to the topic, so let's do it.

Of course the writers of the constitution didn't know, or even could've known, what kind of advancements would be made. Maybe, just maybe, it's the whole reason they wrote a few of the amendments in an all encompassing way. It was by purpose the words were written in "vague" way. So no matter what breakthroughs, innovations, or technological advancements might be made, rights remain intact.

There's no way that the founding members could've predicted the internet for instance. That's why the first doesn't just say newspapers and letters. There's no way the founding members could've predicted assault weapons. That's why the second doesn't just say flintlock pistols and black powder rifles.

All encompassing is just that, all encompassing. The whole argument stating that the founding fathers just couldn't have known just doesn't float. It's a pathetic argument.

But women and blacks were not allowed to vote, and that is ok with you?

Pathetic statement. Rights were extended in that case. Not restricted or taken away. Nice try.

They were restricted in 1787, what part of that do you right wing asshats not understand, they were restricted. Idiot much?

And it took an amendment in 1870 to change that and an act in 1965 to effect it. Both instances of extending rights. Not restricting them.

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: neo96

Any right that requires you to take extraordinary measures to access it is no right at all,

Does it take an extraordinary measure for you ( or most people, for that matter) to access (buy or bear) a firearm?

It does in quite a few states. Not to mention that as a Kentucky resident, if I travel to California, Illinois, or New York I'm effectively stripped of my right to bear arms.

Just curious. How often do you do that?

Does it matter? Just once is enough. You know... rights and all.

I other words you are beaking about something that doesn't even apply to you. Love Kentucky. My daughter did. Leave others rights to themselves. Too damn much nosiness going on.

I have the right to travel to any state I please at any given time I want. I also have the right to not have rights infringed upon. Yep... too much nosiness goes on. It's no one's business but my own if I have a firearm on my person. Leave my rights to myself.

Good luck with that. Governments say differently for EVERYONE'S rights.