If you could amend the Constitution of the US, what would you change?
Suggest Amendments to the United States Constitution
(16 posts) (8 voices)-
Jasowah
MemberI agree with Jeremy, but I know the majority of American's would probably invoke the 2nd in order to protect it. =P American's love guns. Firearms can be used safely but more often than not it seems that they are not.
I remember hearing something about how low gun related deaths are in England and how it's because of their lack of firearms. Most people don't seem competent enough to drive their cars let alone handle in instrument of DEATH.Posted 3 years ago # -
Brian M
MemberMake the right of secession explicit. Centralization has "problems." As screwed up as the South was pre-1861, I'm not sure the centralized, corporatized, and militarized unitary state established by Lincoln has evolved very well.
And I'm not a Neo-Confederate (lol). I took the hippy tome Ecotopia too seriously. (LOL)
There...see if I kill another thread!
Posted 3 years ago # -
Jasowah
Member@Elem: And yet, by ratio, we have way less gun related deaths. I live in Alberta, Canada's cowboy, redneck, beer-drinkin', gun loving province and I rarely hear about shootings. Canadian's are generally more stabby. I hear about people being stabbed in Edmonton all the time.
I suppose maybe it's more of the mentality that seems to surround guns in the states. America is a warrior country (probably not the best wording). This is just hearsay, but from what I have heard, it is much easier to get a firearm in the states than in Canada.Posted 3 years ago # -
Elemenope
ModeratorI tend to think that Michael Moore, of all people, was onto something when he opined that at root, it wasn't an access-to-guns problem but simply a deep-seated cultural problem having to do with how Americans mythologize certain portions of our history (such as the Wild West and participation in WWII) and our psychotic, fear-pumped orientation to the modern world and news-media in particular.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Brian M
MemberThere was an interesting discussion over at Orcinus a year or so ago of the founding "strains" of Anglo Saxon culture which dominated the early United States.
ALBION'S SEED, FOUR BRITISH FOLKWAYS IN NORTH AMERICA: http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/09/albions-seed-four-british-folkways-in.html
Now, this is a gross generalization and plays to the audiences' prejudices quite a bit, perhaps, but it is still fascinating.
"When we think of early America, we think of "The British" in monolithic terms. The first English settlers are usually portrayed as a handful of adventurers, religionists, and opportunists from one small and rather homogeneous island nation -- bringers of a common-enough language, religion, and culture who worked together to create the basic cultural matrix into which every subsequent group of immigrants eventually had to fit. It turns out, though, that this is just another high-school textbook oversimplification -- one that deafens us to some very important historical machinery that's still grinding on noisily in almost every facet of American culture today.
"The British" who came to America may have been subjects of one crown; but Fischer's exhaustive sociological study shows that they were actually four separate groups, each radically different from the others in terms of class, culture, religion, values, and goals. They arrived in four separate waves, each of which originated in a different part of England and came to dominate a specific part of the Colonies. And in the differences between them, Fischer argues, you can hear the origins of the essential American discussion about liberty, power, rights, and values. It turns out that the very arguments we're having in the blogosphere today started long ago in Puritan town halls, Virginian drawing rooms, Quaker meetinghouses, and Appalachian hollows. Incredibly, the issues are the same; the values, priorities, and worldviews behind them have hardly changed; and even the cultural identities of the people doing the arguing are in many cases largely intact. It's not an exaggeration to say that these four groups are still duking it out wherever Americans gather to discuss their common fate to this day."
"Borderers" Scotch Irish and Scottish border zone immigrants, formed an "honour"- based society of clans and feuds. This cultural trait dominated the upland South...the Piedmont and Appalachian regions, and has always seen more violence. People talk about an "American Taliban," well our culture does have a strong element of "American Pashtun" to it from the Scotch-Irish.
On the other hand, the Bush family crime syndicate and their ilk can probably be related to the nefarious lowland planters, the Cavaliers.
In contrast, you have the sober, ever prim Puritans and the communal and commercial and frugal Quaker strains from New England and the Mid Atlantic
Posted 3 years ago # -
Elemenope
ModeratorMake the right of secession explicit. Centralization has "problems." As screwed up as the South was pre-1861, I'm not sure the centralized, corporatized, and militarized unitary state established by Lincoln has evolved very well.
I was pretty amused that the Free State Project's statement of goals would have led inexorably to secession if they were ever successful at taking over New Hampshire and implementing them.
I would have paid money to see it.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Kodie
MemberI tend to think that Michael Moore, of all people, was onto something when he opined that at root, it wasn't an access-to-guns problem but simply a deep-seated cultural problem having to do with how Americans mythologize certain portions of our history (such as the Wild West and participation in WWII) and our psychotic, fear-pumped orientation to the modern world and news-media in particular.
So really it's the freedom of the press that's a problem? J/k. I would take this statement to myself in the past and it would articulate exactly why at one time I never thought I would want to own a gun and thought the 2nd amendment should have been re-examined. Rather some people take this sentiment as a reason to get a gun, to defend their right to own a gun, because they aren't out to get anyone, but they fear others who are - and not the government.
The 2nd amendment is regarding "a well-regulated militia..." I'm not even sure I understand the 2nd amendment. Do we have the well-regulated part? Is this the actual Armed Forces they are talking about, and beside which, an ordinary citizen may keep and bear arms to defend themselves and freedom against a rogue "well-regulated" militia (if the Armed Forces are sent)? If that is the case, I think using guns against the government a-comin' doesn't really work that way. Or gun-owners are supposed to comprise the well-regulated militia, so that's why their right should not be infringed? Is well-regulating something a contradiction of infringing?
Either way, I plan to own a gun someday, but not for any good reason than I decided old guns look really cool, and because I can. I might even learn to shoot it if it works, but I would display it unloaded. If someone breaks in, I have a baseball bat and a couple sharp implements, so I'll probably get shot.
Also, thanks Brian M for that information. I plan to look up that book at the library, it sounds really interesting.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Jeremy
MemberElemenope, according to Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership#cite_note-Adjacic_2006-0) the US is way, way, way ahead in terms of guns per capita (90 for every 100 citizens!). Canada is 9th on the list, with 31.5.
But I'd agree with others here that America's gun problem is caused by much more than just the existing laws (or lack thereof); that it's a cultural mindset and obsession. But compounding those issues with a constitutional right to arm myself to the teeth is pretty absurd in the 21st century. 18th century, sure.
I grew up in a rural area so I know plenty of my fellow Canadians who own shotguns or rifles. But very few of them claim owning those guns to be a God-given right, or "you'll take them from my cold dead hands", etc. There's not such an obsession about it.
And while rifles and shotguns have a certain utility in rural areas (though truthfully they're mostly for sport), I can't think of a single good reason to allow everyone and his dog access to concealable handguns.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Everyone and his dog doesn't have (legal) access to concealable handguns. If cutting off the supply of *illegal* firearms to those who cannot obtain them legally requires cutting off the supply to those who can obtain them legally (which is still a bit of a stretch, IMO) then that does seem to lean against the current supreme court interpretation of the second amendment (as least as far as I'm aware.)
It would be like banning the internet to cut down on the distribution of child pornography. Would it cut down on the distribution? Likely yes. Is it a justified measure? I dunno about that...
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.