It is time to revise/update the U.S. constitution..... - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-17-2007, 08:51 AM   #1
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Tel-Aviv, Israel
Posts: 1,300
Local Time: 08:45 AM
It is time to revise/update the U.S. constitution.....

Yesterday's massacre in Virginia was the last straw as far as I'm concerned.

The U.S. constitution was written in the 1700's after the U.S. won it's independence from Britain in order to make sure that the citizens of the newly-formed nation will never again suffer the opressions of monarchy and that they will be granted freedoms that were denied them during the British rule.

These freedoms included the right to free speech, assembly, religion, the right to bear arms....etc., and were instituted as a remedy for the previous opression the citizens were under.

For the past 220 years, the U.S. has been an independent nation and is no longer subject to the rules of any other country. The wording of the constitution was suitable for the 18th century and, apart from various amendments that were added throughout the centuries, the basic structure hasn't changed.

There have been constitutional amendments which have come and gone (such as slavery and prohibition) and I see no reason why the constitution can't undergo a revision to suit these dangerous times we live in.

I'm talking specifically about freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. The ease in which anybody can get his hands on a weapon is frightening....and yesterday was a shining example. The facts of yesterday's massacre aren't yet completely known but I have no doubt that something has to be done about gun control. You can give the old ARA argument that "guns don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people" but the fact remains that the lax gun laws in America have made it so easy for anyone to purchase a firearm with almost no questions asked.

As for free speech - I'm very sure that the founding fathers didn't mean the freedom to insult or incite. Don Imus and Rosie O'Donnell are textbook examples of how freedom of speech has gone too far. Rosie O'Donnell calling for the impeachment of a sitting president during a time of war would be considered treason in some countries. Don Imus calling a group of women by a racial slur in a live radio broadcast is totally unacceptable.

The lunatics who subscribe to the 911 conspiracies are perhaps the BEST example of why 1st amendment should be revised. In this case, freedom of speech equals freedom of STUPIDITY. People who use their free speech to insult the memory of the innocent people killed on 911 shouldn't even be allowed any forum. People like Cindy Sheehan (who downgrades her son's sacrifice to his country by calling Bush a murderer) should be denied access to a microphone.

Here are perfect examples of the right way and the wrong way to use free speech: let's say I'm at an anti-war rally and I have a megaphone handy, I am deeply disappointed in the way the war is being waged and wish to express my views to the crowd.

One way:
"Please stop the killing, bring the troops home and negotiate a peace....don't let any more innocents people on either side be killed. George Bush, please hear our cries and bring the troops back home".

Another way:
"Let's send George Bush's children to Iraq so they can die in the war that he started. All he wants is oil and world domination. George Bush is a killer and he should suffer the same loss as we do.....he should be put on trial for war crimes and hung in the Hague and burn in hell forever".



Do you think that both statements should enjoy the same 1st amendment rights equally? I don't.........you can clearly see the difference between them.

To summarize, the U.S. constitution is outdated and needs to be revised to meet today's challenges and today's threats.

I welcome your comments on this matter.

Thanks.
__________________

__________________
AchtungBono is offline  
Old 04-17-2007, 08:54 AM   #2
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 03:45 AM
I think it's time for people to learn how to manage anger and deal with their emotions in appropriate ways. Unless you can mandate that constitutionally...

When a country uses violence to solve conflicts it tends to set a certain example.
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 04-17-2007, 09:05 AM   #3
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 04:45 AM
The vast majority of legal gun owners never commit any crimes with those guns. Removing their right to own them would stop very few crimes. I suspect this man would have obtained guns even if they were completely illegal. To get rid of all the guns in this country -- not just the legally owned ones -- would take measures I know I do not want taken here.

As for removing free speech -- no. Period.
__________________
indra is offline  
Old 04-17-2007, 09:09 AM   #4
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Tel-Aviv, Israel
Posts: 1,300
Local Time: 08:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
I think it's time for people to learn how to manage anger and deal with their emotions in appropriate ways. Unless you can mandate that constitutionally...

When a country uses violence to solve conflicts it tends to set a certain example.
Thanks for your input Mrs. S.

Son of Sam went on his killing spree in the late 70's when the U.S. wasn't engaged in any military conflict.

John Lennon was killed in 1980 - also when the U.S. wasn't engaged in any military conflict.

How do you feel about how easy it was for David Berkowitz and Mark David Chapman to get hold of firearms?

I don't believe for a minute that yesterday's killer took a page from the GWB book of conflicts, and I don't think that what happened yesterday has anything to do with the war. I guess we'll find out his motive in the coming days.

Thank you again.
__________________
AchtungBono is offline  
Old 04-17-2007, 09:11 AM   #5
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 12:45 AM
AchtungBono, please put your own country in order before you start trying to take away any rights Americans still have left.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 04-17-2007, 09:13 AM   #6
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 03:45 AM
I'm not saying at all that it has to do with GWB or the war, if only it were that simple actually..but it does set a certain tone if not example. That would be taking the individual's responsibility away and making excuses. I believe in that responsibility, in no excuses. I actually am in favor of restrictions on gun availability-but that isn't the only answer. The ultimate answer lies within.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 04-17-2007, 09:14 AM   #7
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:45 AM
How do you know Achtung is not a dual citizen? How about a civil discussion instead of mudslinging....

LOLOLOLOL

I said it with a straight face almost.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-17-2007, 09:14 AM   #8
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Tel-Aviv, Israel
Posts: 1,300
Local Time: 08:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by indra
The vast majority of legal gun owners never commit any crimes with those guns. Removing their right to own them would stop very few crimes. I suspect this man would have obtained guns even if they were completely illegal. To get rid of all the guns in this country -- not just the legally owned ones -- would take measures I know I do not want taken here.

As for removing free speech -- no. Period.
Thank you Indra.

I didn't say to REMOVE any rights completely, what I meant is that the amendments have to be revised in order to make it a lot more difficult for someone to obtain a gun, albeit legally.

I wouldn't ever call for the complete abolishment of all civil rights - that would be unrealistic and autocratic.
__________________
AchtungBono is offline  
Old 04-17-2007, 09:17 AM   #9
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Tel-Aviv, Israel
Posts: 1,300
Local Time: 08:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha
AchtungBono, please put your own country in order before you start trying to take away any rights Americans still have left.
I'm sorry Martha but I did not say that rights should be taken away from the American people. What I said is that there should be several revisions made to suit the times.

As for my country.....I'll have you know that the gun laws here are some of the strictest in the world. Only soldiers and the security forces are allowed to carry guns openly and if you want to register for a permit you have to prove that you live either in a very dangerous area or work in a dangerous profession (such as a jeweler or a diamond merchant) - and don't think they don't do a thorough background check on you.......believe me it's easier to penetrate the White House than it is to get a gun in Israel so I think we're doing okay in that respect.

My ultimate goal is to have strong enough legislature to ensure that what happened yesterday cannot happen again - I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

Thanks for your comment.
__________________
AchtungBono is offline  
Old 04-17-2007, 09:19 AM   #10
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Tel-Aviv, Israel
Posts: 1,300
Local Time: 08:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
How do you know Achtung is not a dual citizen? How about a civil discussion instead of mudslinging....

LOLOLOLOL

I said it with a straight face almost.
lol...thanks Dread....I think.....
__________________
AchtungBono is offline  
Old 04-17-2007, 09:21 AM   #11
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 04:45 AM
Quote:
Don Imus and Rosie O'Donnell are textbook examples of how freedom of speech has gone too far. Rosie O'Donnell calling for the impeachment of a sitting president during a time of war would be considered treason in some countries. Don Imus calling a group of women by a racial slur in a live radio broadcast is totally unacceptable.
"Textbook examples"? What lasting harm did either of these individuals make when they said what they said? Imus has been more than punished for his words in the court of public opinion--which is a "textbook example" of how our freedom of speech protections are working exactly as intended.

And Rosie O'Donnell's talk about impeachment of a sitting president is exactly the kind of speech that the First Amendment was meant to protect. Our Founding Fathers wanted a nation that would be unafraid of criticizing its political leaders, in direct contrast to a nation like Great Britain in the 18th century, where insulting the monarchy, no matter how corrupt or idiotic it acted, would probably get you imprisoned and/or executed. And even in the 21st century, don't think that such an amendment wouldn't be grossly abused; Bush already acts like he's the de facto dictator of this nation (by bitching and moaning every time Congress exercises its Constitutional duty to challenge the president), and the last thing we need is to give him--or any president--an excuse to arrest dissidents.

So, no, amending the First Amendment to eliminate total freedom of speech is completely unacceptable and, frankly, un-American.
__________________
Ormus is offline  
Old 04-17-2007, 09:27 AM   #12
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 04:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AchtungBono

My ultimate goal is to have strong enough legislature to ensure that what happened yesterday cannot happen again - I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
But that's an impossibility in a reasonably free society. And I do think that as horrifying and sad as what happened yesterday is, when we really, really, really think about it, we would rather live in a nation where these horrible shooting sprees do sometimes happen than one where they cannot.

Think hard, very hard, about the type of measures that would have to be taken to make sure such a thing "cannot" happen. That is truly terrifying.
__________________
indra is offline  
Old 04-17-2007, 09:33 AM   #13
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Tel-Aviv, Israel
Posts: 1,300
Local Time: 08:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Ormus


"Textbook examples"? What lasting harm did either of these individuals make when they said what they said? Imus has been more than punished for his words in the court of public opinion--which is a "textbook example" of how our freedom of speech protections are working exactly as intended.

And Rosie O'Donnell's talk about impeachment of a sitting president is exactly the kind of speech that the First Amendment was meant to protect. Our Founding Fathers wanted a nation that would be unafraid of criticizing its political leaders, in direct contrast to a nation like Great Britain in the 18th century, where insulting the monarchy, no matter how corrupt or idiotic it acted, would probably get you imprisoned and/or executed. And even in the 21st century, don't think that such an amendment wouldn't be grossly abused; Bush already acts like he's the de facto dictator of this nation (by bitching and moaning every time Congress exercises its Constitutional duty to challenge the president), and the last thing we need is to give him--or any president--an excuse to arrest dissidents.

So, no, amending the First Amendment to eliminate total freedom of speech is completely unacceptable and, frankly, un-American.
You raised some very good points Ormus.

However you must remember that a war is going on and the enemy is watching everything that is going on. Don't think they don't rub their hands with glee when they see the level of disention(sp?) within the American public. They see this as a sign of weakness on America's part and use it as an excuse to intensify their efforts against America.

By all means, criticize George Bush, impeach him and even put him on trial if warranted.....but do it AFTER the war is over. To do so now would play right into the hands of the terrorists and undermine the efforts to defeat the enemy and end the war as soon as possible.

Thanks.
__________________
AchtungBono is offline  
Old 04-17-2007, 09:34 AM   #14
Refugee
 
fly so high!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: St Andrews NSW Australia
Posts: 1,835
Local Time: 06:45 PM
Re: It is time to revise/update the U.S. constitution.....

Quote:
Originally posted by AchtungBono
Yesterday's massacre in Virginia was the last straw as far as I'm concerned.

The U.S. constitution was written in the 1700's after the U.S. won it's independence from Britain in order to make sure that the citizens of the newly-formed nation will never again suffer the opressions of monarchy and that they will be granted freedoms that were denied them during the British rule.

For the past 220 years, the U.S. has been an independent nation and is no longer subject to the rules of any other country. The wording of the constitution was suitable for the 18th century and, apart from various amendments that were added throughout the centuries, the basic structure hasn't changed.

There have been constitutional amendments which have come and gone (such as slavery and prohibition) and I see no reason why the constitution can't undergo a revision to suit these dangerous times we live in.

The ease in which anybody can get his hands on a weapon is frightening....and yesterday was a shining example. The facts of yesterday's massacre aren't yet completely known but I have no doubt that something has to be done about gun control. You can give the old ARA argument that "guns don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people" but the fact remains that the lax gun laws in America have made it so easy for anyone to purchase a firearm with almost no questions asked.

To summarize, the U.S. constitution is outdated and needs to be revised to meet today's challenges and today's threats.

I welcome your comments on this matter.

Thanks.
I agree...............BUT with only this part of your post.

I DO NOT agree with what you said about Freedom Of Speech.....How could one possibly enforce that anyway!! The Judicial System should be coming into effect for those who ENTICE voilence using freedom of speech......"Freedom Of Speech" does not equal to "say and do what ever you like without consequences!!!"
__________________
fly so high! is offline  
Old 04-17-2007, 09:42 AM   #15
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Tel-Aviv, Israel
Posts: 1,300
Local Time: 08:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by indra


But that's an impossibility in a reasonably free society. And I do think that as horrifying and sad as what happened yesterday is, when we really, really, really think about it, we would rather live in a nation where these horrible shooting sprees do sometimes happen than one where they cannot.

Think hard, very hard, about the type of measures that would have to be taken to make sure such a thing "cannot" happen. That is truly terrifying.
Really Indra? Would you really prefer to live in a country where your next door neighbour could suddenly decide to harm you just because he CAN???....Wouldn't you rather have laws that protect you from that kind of violence??
__________________

__________________
AchtungBono is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com