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

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

AchtungBono

Refugee
Joined
Jul 18, 2001
Messages
1,300
Location
Tel-Aviv, Israel
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
indra said:
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.
 
martha said:
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
AchtungBono said:

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.
 
Ormus said:


"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 said:
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!!!"
 
indra said:


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??
 
Re: Re: It is time to revise/update the U.S. constitution.....

fly so high! said:


....."Freedom Of Speech" does not equal to "say and do what ever you like without consequences!!!"

That is EXACTLY what I said.
Certain speech should not come under the protection of the 1st amendment - such as hate speech and incitement. That's why the wording has to be changed.
 
While I do not agree with the restriction of Freedom Of Speech, I do strongly believe the right to bare arms is incredibly antiquated...

I realize this is a touchy subject and that firearms have become so prevalent in society that there is a sense that you need to own a gun simply to protect yourself from others...

I can't help but think that if this guy at VT had a hunting knife or a machete, would he have been able to kill or wound over 60 people as easily as he did with guns?
 
It's difficult to argue that stronger gun control laws could have prevented what happened yesterday. If a person wants a gun bad enough, then they will find away to get it. Look at the relative ease that drugs can be obtained despite all the laws against them. I'm not a gun lover at all, but I just don't see how more regulation would be helpful.
 
it's interesting.

i wonder if the nationality of the shooter will change the debate.

of course we'll have the nativist racist response, but i do wonder if the more serious "culture" debate will be affected by the fact that this person was not an American. to my mind, it just underscores how the availability of guns causes violence to escalate. i'm not sure there's something so unique to the American psyche that makes us more prone to violence, though, despite a history born from a revolution, a wild west mythology, and a current administration that enthusiastically embraces violence as a first-means foreign policy tool.

the fact remains: no one knifes 30 people in a classroom.

it's going to be interesting. and it remains to be seen how the debate is going to take place.
 
True, if someone wants a gun they will get a gun, but we still shouldn't make it so easy for them to get one...

It would take someone in the 'know' to get a gun if there were tighter gun controls, therefore preventing someone who has just flipped out committing one of these types of horrible crimes.

There was a man on Newsnight yesterday on the BBC from Virginnia Defence Force (something along those lines) called Van Cleave, he was advocating that all the students should have been carrying arms in order to stop the guy:huh:

Honestly I just find it a stupid thing to allow everyone the right to guns, it is as someone has said, very antiquated.

At the very least a police check and a waiting period of a number of months for a weapon should be implemented, ergo reducing spur of the moment crimes, it strikes me as the most sensible thing to do.
 
Re: Re: Re: It is time to revise/update the U.S. constitution.....

AchtungBono said:

Certain speech should not come under the protection of the 1st amendment - such as hate speech and incitement. That's why the wording has to be changed.

Who decides what equals "hate" and what opinions are punishable? You???
 
LJT said:
Honestly I just find it a stupid thing to allow everyone the right to guns, it is as someone has said, very antiquated.

That was me :wink:

I can see the need for guns when the constitution was ratified originally; the majority of the US was wilderness with wild animals and hostile natives (not very PC but it was a reality at the time). Other than the "everybody else has guns" argument today, is there any other current need to own one for protection?

And don't even get me started on the hunting/target practice excuse either... Totally unnecessary… :tsk:
 
LJT said:
There was a man on Newsnight yesterday on the BBC from Virginnia Defence Force (something along those lines) called Van Cleave, he was advocating that all the students should have been carrying arms in order to stop the guy:huh:

I heard/read similar things and couldn't help but wonder how this would not have made the situation even more chaotic. How would the police know who were the "good" guys and who was the bad guy? Wouldn't there be a huge risk that the responders would accidentally shoot someone else? Not to mention having even more bullets flying around and the risk of them hitting accidental moving targets. I admit, I just don't see how this could possibly be a better scenario.
 
elevated_u2_fan said:

And don't even get me started on the hunting/target practice excuse either... Totally unnecessary… :tsk:

I come from a long line of hunters and we'd all agree with you. Assault rifles have no place in society. You don't use assault rifles for hunting or target practice, unless your target is a human being.
 
AchtungBono said:


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.


Don't fall for this. This is just something the right has made up to silence dissention.

Have you ever lived in America? I find it interesting you want to change our constitution.

Gun control does need to be rethought here in America and it has for awhile. Don't forget your hero lifted the assault rifle ban.:|

As far as free speech, you're so off.
 
i have conflicted feelings about gun control.

i suppose all i want is this: all those who own and love their guns, can you please admit to us all that you're willing to accept 33 dead in order to retain the rights you enjoy.

i just want acknowledgement that gun ownership comes at a price, and that you think it's worth it.
 
randhail said:
It's difficult to argue that stronger gun control laws could have prevented what happened yesterday. If a person wants a gun bad enough, then they will find away to get it. Look at the relative ease that drugs can be obtained despite all the laws against them. I'm not a gun lover at all, but I just don't see how more regulation would be helpful.

I tend to agree with this. While I am in no way a proponent of guns, and would love to see them off the streets, I do not see how tougher gun laws could have prevented yesterday's tragedy.

If someone wants a gun bad enough they will find a way to do so. Here in Montreal we've had three major school shootings in 17 years. The gun laws were toughened after the first two and that still didn't prevent a shooting at Dawson College last September. In fact, Canada in general has, relatively speaking, pretty strict gun laws and yet we still have some gun related murders.
 
I heard it said once that if you own a gun, someone will get shot. While I don't think that's intended to be taken literally, I have seen with my own eyes people waving a gun around because they had difficulty controling their anger and frustration. One incident comes to mind from when I lived in NYC. I witnessed a minor fender bender by Washington Square Park...a car rear-ended another car and the two drivers got out and started screaming at each other, and one of them--a woman--pulled a gun out of her car and started threatening the other driver. It was completely insane. I happened to have a friend from Italy visiting me and he was just astonished and said it was precisely the kind of incident that makes non-Americans think we're a violent society. He interrogated me like a broken record for the rest of the trip: "How is it possible that that woman had a gun? How is it possible?"

I don't know that stricter gun control laws would have prevented this incident but I certainly don't think that the solution to the gun problem in America is more guns.
 
BonoManiac said:
In fact, Canada in general has, relatively speaking, pretty strict gun laws and yet we still have some gun related murders.

Very few compared to the US. Very few.

Not to mention, the majority of the illegal guns in Canada are courtesy of the US gun market.
 
Back
Top Bottom