AchtungBono
Refugee
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.
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.