"The founding fathers didn't know about x, y, or z. Things have changed since.. - Page 6 - TigerDroppings.com

Posted byMessage
NC_Tigah
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2003
50513 posts

re: "The founding fathers didn't know about x, y, or z. Things have changed since..


quote:

without taking modern reality into account.
If they have "taken modern reality" of an upcoming $20T debt, they'd have negotiated to revert to British rule






This post was edited on 1/26 at 6:34 pm


Back to top
VOR
New Orleans Pelicans Fan
New Orleans
Member since Apr 2009
40664 posts

re: "The founding fathers didn't know about x, y, or z. Things have changed since..


quote:

If they saw an upcoming $20T debt, they'd have negotiated to revert to British rule


I'm not dumb, but I don't know what the frick you mean.






Back to top
MrCarton
UNO Fan
Paradise Valley, MT
Member since Dec 2009
2224 posts

re: "The founding fathers didn't know about x, y, or z. Things have changed since..


quote:

I'm not going to bust out a field manual, MTOE, or anything else to have a discussion on the 2nd Amendment


IF you want to base an individual rights on what military units use, than you would need to do this. Of course as the MTOE and manuals changed, you would have to continuously change the limitations of the amendment, which is unnecessarily burdensome given the original document covered the entire concept.

quote:

The words "standard" and "basic" simply exclude the SAW, mortars, and other such specialty weapons. That's it.



Then just say you support semi-auto rifles as the limit of the 2nd amendment. Of course, you would be eliminating shotguns and pistols from the list of weapons that could be carried by individuals as they would be "specialty weapons".

To get back to your original post: The real point is that the 2nd amendment mentions "militia" and not military, as qualifying terminology.

The founders did not need to foresee the technology we have now, because the concept, which is what I believe the bill of rights collectively form, remains the same, only the means to achieve it have changed.








Back to top
NC_Tigah
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2003
50513 posts

re: "The founding fathers didn't know about x, y, or z. Things have changed since..


quote:

I'm not dumb, but I . . .
Ray Davies?

Well, I'm not dumb but I can't understand
Why she walked like a woman but talked like a man . . .






Back to top
VOR
New Orleans Pelicans Fan
New Orleans
Member since Apr 2009
40664 posts

re: "The founding fathers didn't know about x, y, or z. Things have changed since..


quote:

Ray Davies?

Well, I'm not dumb but I can't understand
Why she walked like a woman but talked like a man . . .






I met him once in a bar here in town (N.O.). Actually a nice guy. Of course, he went and got himself shot.






Back to top
SoulGlo
LSU Fan
Shinin' Through
Member since Dec 2011
3478 posts

re: "The founding fathers didn't know about x, y, or z. Things have changed since..


quote:

The founders did not need to foresee the technology we have now, because the concept, which is what I believe the bill of rights collectively form, remains the same, only the means to achieve it have changed.



I think we're on the same page. My use of the terms and "standard" military is to simply disarm the fricknuts that come out saying "should everybody have a nuke?"

Their main argument is that the scary assault weapons should be banned. "High capacity" mags should be banned. I'm saying that if it's good enough for a GI, then it's good enough for me. How can you trust every soldier in the military with an M16, M4, AR15 or whatever they carry at the time, then say it's illegal to have one when they are not on base? It's retarded.

I can be persuaded either way on the availability of fully automatic weapons. Semi-auto, on the other hand, should have no limits. Select-fire 3 round burst should be ok for public use IMO as well.






Back to top
MrCarton
UNO Fan
Paradise Valley, MT
Member since Dec 2009
2224 posts

re: "The founding fathers didn't know about x, y, or z. Things have changed since..


Glad we got that worked out. I recommend to most folks a good look at what has made guerrilla and militia fighters successful in the modern era for a baseline as to what the 2nd amendment means. It is fun reading at minimum.





Back to top
SoulGlo
LSU Fan
Shinin' Through
Member since Dec 2011
3478 posts

re: "The founding fathers didn't know about x, y, or z. Things have changed since..


quote:

Glad we got that worked out. I recommend to most folks a good look at what has made guerrilla and militia fighters successful in the modern era for a baseline as to what the 2nd amendment means. It is fun reading at minimum.


My point exactly.






Back to top
SoulGlo
LSU Fan
Shinin' Through
Member since Dec 2011
3478 posts

re: "The founding fathers didn't know about x, y, or z. Things have changed since..


quote:

quote:
If they saw an upcoming $20T debt, they'd have negotiated to revert to British rule


I'm not dumb, but I don't know what the frick you mean.



If you don't know what he means, you're dumb.






Back to top
Poodlebrain
LSU Fan
Way Right of Rex
Member since Jan 2004
14971 posts
 Online 

re: "The founding fathers didn't know about x, y, or z. Things have changed since..


quote:

No one knows their intent. Also, 2/3rds of both houses is a near impossibility. Especially today. I seriously doubt they truly intended to make the process that difficult.
They knew exactly how difficult they were making the amendment process. They determined that amending the constitution should require a 2/3rds majority of support from the representatives of the people and from the representatives of the states, and then support from 3/4ths of the state governments. You will note that the founders also required 2/3rds majority vote by the Senate in cases of impeachment. So they were maintaining a certain consistency throughout the document.

If it was near impossible, then how did 6 amendments get ratified from 1913 through 1933?

quote:

The constitution is FAR from a perfect document and the amendment process, IMO, is possibly its biggest flaw.
No, the biggest flaw is not addressing secession. That whole silly little war from 1861-1865 could have been avoided if the issue had been addressed. And if the constitution is flawed with respect to the amendment process, is it als oflawed with respect to the impeachment process? The same 2/3rds majority of Senators is required for conviction.






Back to top
SlowFlowPro
Stanford Fan
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
292514 posts

re: "The founding fathers didn't know about x, y, or z. Things have changed since..


quote:

the framers probably assumed that future generations would be insightful and bright enough to understand that the wording of the constitution should be applied in light of the the reality at the time.

no way

they created the amendment process to do this

quote:

If not, they would be fricking political equivalent of luddites.

not really. the constitution is just the basic framework and limitations of the federal government

we don't need a powerful, expansive, or ever-changing federal government outside of a few ares (many, if not all, of which are listed in the document)

why does the document governing our federal government need to be so malleable?

quote:

It is absolutely ludicrous to think that they would apply the values inherent in the constitution today without taking modern reality into account.

not at all

again. 2 simple questions, from earlier in this thread:

quote:

i have 2 simple questions:

1. what are the limits of the federal government?

2. assuming your argument is true, how can we respect ANY part of the constitution (namely the first amendment)?







Back to top
SoulGlo
LSU Fan
Shinin' Through
Member since Dec 2011
3478 posts

re: "The founding fathers didn't know about x, y, or z. Things have changed since..


quote:

quote:
If not, they would be fricking political equivalent of luddites.

not really. the constitution is just the basic framework and limitations of the federal government

we don't need a powerful, expansive, or ever-changing federal government outside of a few ares (many, if not all, of which are listed in the document)

why does the document governing our federal government need to be so malleable?


This is an excellent point. The Constitution wasn't written to govern people. It was meant to govern government. It was worded to prevent the repetition of history. Every democracy in history slid into totalitarianism by majority rule. The history of the world is tyranny. The rules were placed on government to prevent the governing from abusing the citizens.

The Constitution was so difficult to mend because politicians naturally hold power over the people while in office. They make and rescind laws according to their agendas. The document that governs the government must be more powerful than the government in order to do its job.







Back to top
corndeaux
New Orleans Pelicans Fan
Member since Sep 2009
5279 posts

re: "The founding fathers didn't know about x, y, or z. Things have changed since..


quote:

The Constitution was so difficult to mend because politicians naturally hold power over the people while in office. They make and rescind laws according to their agendas. The document that governs the government must be more powerful than the government in order to do its job. 


this is why we vote and hold elections. the power ultimately rests in the collective people






Back to top
MrCarton
UNO Fan
Paradise Valley, MT
Member since Dec 2009
2224 posts

re: "The founding fathers didn't know about x, y, or z. Things have changed since..


quote:


this is why we vote and hold elections. the power ultimately rests in the collective people


I hope the power never rests with the collective masses, because they are a liability to the constitution. Representatives have as much a duty to serve the people as they do to uphold the constitution and protect it from the whims of the idiot masses.






Back to top
VOR
New Orleans Pelicans Fan
New Orleans
Member since Apr 2009
40664 posts

re: "The founding fathers didn't know about x, y, or z. Things have changed since..


Of course, we'll never know, but I would bet the farm that the framers would take positions on modern constitutional issues that would make some of our constitutional conservatives on this site shite their pants. It is fricking absurd to assume that they thought it would be necessary to adopt dozens and dozens of amendments to address each and every specific issue arising from the nonsense on the part of rabid, strict constructionists. The argument from some of you, who clearly have some intelligence, is mind blowing.





Back to top
SlowFlowPro
Stanford Fan
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
292514 posts

re: "The founding fathers didn't know about x, y, or z. Things have changed since..


quote:

Of course, we'll never know, but I would bet the farm that the framers would take positions on modern constitutional issues that would make some of our constitutional conservatives on this site shite their pants.

possibly. they were slave owners at worst and aristocrats at best. they were also often hypocrites when it came to federal power. but that's why they wrote the document how they wrote it

if they would write a different constitution based on today, then that's their prerogative. nothing prevents us from amending the current document to reflect modern society. if there is THAT big of a gap, you'd see more people pushing for this and it wouldn't be the alleged impossibility that people proclaim it

quote:

It is fricking absurd to assume that they thought it would be necessary to adopt dozens and dozens of amendments to address each and every specific issue arising from the nonsense on the part of rabid, strict constructionists.

kind of like how prohibition (which occurred in the 20th century) was done via amendment and not federal legislation?






Back to top
corndeaux
New Orleans Pelicans Fan
Member since Sep 2009
5279 posts

re: "The founding fathers didn't know about x, y, or z. Things have changed since..


quote:

I hope the power never rests with the collective masses, because they are a liability to the constitution


well you better get working on some voter restriction amendments b/c the constitution has about 200 million potential liabilities right now






Back to top
VOR
New Orleans Pelicans Fan
New Orleans
Member since Apr 2009
40664 posts

re: "The founding fathers didn't know about x, y, or z. Things have changed since..


quote:

if they would write a different constitution based on today, then that's their prerogative. nothing prevents us from amending the current document to reflect modern society. if there is THAT big of a gap, you'd see more people pushing for this and it wouldn't be the alleged impossibility that people proclaim it



Well, I suppose the nation could be like Louisiana with its numerous constitutions and, of course, the annual amendments. That would be just swell.

If there was no room for interpretation, the Supreme Court would never have been established in the first place. It has a role to play. But apparently, if it does anything other than read and apply the Constitution on a high school level, it is overstepping its bounds according to some.

quote:

kind of like how prohibition (which occurred in the 20th century) was done via amendment and not federal legislation?



That the frick does that prove?






Back to top
SlowFlowPro
Stanford Fan
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
292514 posts

re: "The founding fathers didn't know about x, y, or z. Things have changed since..


quote:

That the frick does that prove?

that as late as the time DIRECTLY before the new deal, the population/government believed such an expansive federal policy required an amendment. after the new deal, that policy was as simple as a congressional law

quote:

I suppose the nation could be like Louisiana with its numerous constitutions and, of course, the annual amendments. That would be just swell.

the point is to avoid that scenario by making it a more difficult process than what we have in LA

quote:

If there was no room for interpretation, the Supreme Court would never have been established in the first place. It has a role to play. But apparently, if it does anything other than read and apply the Constitution on a high school level, it is overstepping its bounds according to some.

interpreting the constitution is fine

but we didn't start applying societal standards of the time of the decision to those interpretations until the new deal. since that point the federal government has become a leviathon

again, i have the 2 basic questions i pasted a few posts ago






Back to top
VOR
New Orleans Pelicans Fan
New Orleans
Member since Apr 2009
40664 posts

re: "The founding fathers didn't know about x, y, or z. Things have changed since..


quote:

again, i have the 2 basic questions i pasted a few posts ago


You don't actually expect me to go find those questions, do you?






Back to top


Back to top




//