U.S. Supreme Court must be full of idiots

[psd1]

Originally Posted by MostH8D

i could go either way on the living document debate.

looking at it one way, some of the things going on 200+ years ago dont really xlate to todays standards and morals, the other way, there are just somethings that are everlasting.

i dont think we'll ever be able to understand the context the second amendment was written in but its always possible to add amendments to change this.

with that in mind i think it could be more considered a living document than not. if it were a bonified contract, i dont think there would be provision to amend it.

just one way of looking at it.

Are you serious? There is only ONE way to look at it...The US Constitution is NOT a living document...it never has been. It is what it is! Amend away, but dont try to tell me that it isnt relevent just because it is 200 years old.

[MostH8D]

what ever makes you feel better about yourself.

[R33_GTS-t]

Constitutions should not be malleable. If they are, it defeats the object of having one. May as well just say, "we'll make it up as we go along."

[MostH8D]

why is it amendable?

how is owning guns now and then the same?

women still shouldnt be able to vote.

everyone should own a minority.

who needs freedom of religion and speech?

....you're all right. we should never have attempted to change that silly constitution we have.

hell, for that matter the whole right to bear arms is an amendment. so by your argument it was never a right to begin with.

[R33_GTS-t]

There's a difference between an amendment made shortly after ratification and one made after 200 years under an increasingly oppressive administration.

[R33_GTS-t]

Originally Posted by MostH8D

why is it amendable?

how is owning guns now and then the same?

women still shouldnt be able to vote.

everyone should own a minority.

who needs freedom of religion and speech?

....you're all right. we should never have attempted to change that silly constitution we have.

hell, for that matter the whole right to bear arms is an amendment. so by your argument it was never a right to begin with.

All those amendments were made to free people not enslave them. They added freedom but abolishing the 2nd takes freedom away.

[MostH8D]

Originally Posted by R33_GTS-t

Constitutions should not be malleable. If they are, it defeats the object of having one. May as well just say, "we'll make it up as we go along."

you said it yourself....

BUT...

whether amended shortly after or long after does it not make it malleable?

whether to add freedoms or not does it not make the document malleable?

in short to amend is to make it up as you go along.

EX...hey! prohibition sounds like a good idea!!!

oh wait. no. it was a bad idea.

slavery was a good idea back in the day, but when society changed so did the amendments.

women not voting always sounds like a winner to me but society changed.

IT LIVES!!!

in the end i dont care TBH. im a white (-ish) male so the constitution was written for me. im just playing devils advocate.

[R33_GTS-t]

Originally Posted by MostH8D

you said it yourself....

BUT...

whether amended shortly after or long after does it not make it malleable?

whether to add freedoms or not does it not make the document malleable?

in short to amend is to make it up as you go along.

EX...hey! prohibition sounds like a good idea!!!

oh wait. no. it was a bad idea.

slavery was a good idea back in the day, but when society changed so did the amendments.

women not voting always sounds like a winner to me but society changed.

IT LIVES!!!

in the end i dont care TBH. im a white (-ish) male so the constitution was written for me. im just playing devils advocate.

At the end of the day, when confronted by a group of thugs, I want to reach for a gun not a mobile phone.

[MostH8D]

i agree there...

but it would necessarily be possible if we didn't add this amendment and therefore change the original contract with the gov't.

[R33_GTS-t]

Originally Posted by MostH8D

i agree there...

but it would necessarily be possible if we didn't add this amendment and therefore change the original contract with the gov't.

Yes but it was amended to add freedom and protect liberty. The only example you provided of an amendment that removed liberty is prohibition. That worked well.

[Fuggles]

Simple solution...................

Q1: Do you need a gun?

if yes go to Q2.

Q2: Before owning a gun a full training course is required. Please select which one of the following three month intensive training courses you would like to enrol in before being given a licence*
□ Afghanisatn
□ Iraq



*(sorry license for our American friends)

[R33_GTS-t]

Originally Posted by Fuggles

Simple solution...................

Q1: Do you need a gun?

if yes go to Q2.

Q2: Before owning a gun a full training course is required. Please select which one of the following three month intensive training courses you would like to enrol in before being given a licence*
□ Afghanisatn
□ Iraq



*(sorry license for our American friends)

Is there not a third option of sitting on top of Big Ben with a CheyTac M200?

[MostH8D]

r33...nice avatar....funny ass site...


fuggles...spot on with Q2.

[moleman]

psd1

I have sought council from other mods and admin about this, so don't do it lightly.

I have told you not pursue your agendas on this forum.

I don't know if you have no regard for the forum, admin, mods, or me personally, but resurrecting this thread was out of order.

Whatever, have a month on me.