Which amendments should be removed and why

[lloebet]

Since this seemed like a topic some wanted to talk about I'll leave this here for them too spar thoughts.
In my opinion the second amendment is outdated. Original purpose for being established was a fear of a powerful government, and this second amendment is what implied the people the power to rebel against an unjust government.
Since I don't see any communists or socialists or fascist governments being voted into the government anytime soon however, all of that seems irrelevant. And to protect against a foreign invader? What do you honestly expect to do since the only foreign invader would be an army. You might get one or two but hell, you'd die either way, and opening fire on an invader is an even quicker way to ensure your death.
But as well, if that is the reason for owning a gun, what are they doing with the guns in the meantime?

 

[CoffeeDrink]

I'm tired of the gun ownership debate. I tire of people saying I shouldn't own them just because people kill people with them. In that case, I shouldn't own:

steak knives
Pots
Pans
Scissors
Tables
Chairs
A Car
Any type of glass bottle
A toaster
A TV
Power tools
Hand tools
Leg of Lamb
An air conditioner
A dog
A fork
Lamps
or even my own appendages.

People have guns, deal with it; if you can't deal with it then you don't belong here on this planet. Guns are here, they won't go away, the US consumes the most illicit drugs hence why we have a higher crime lord rate to that of other countries.

Also: https://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/179192-DIY-Shovel-AK-photo-tsunami-warning!

Made in the privacy of one's own home. Also, I've actually seen bazaars where 10-11 year old boys assist their fathers in hand machining knock off AKs, and they sell these at around $150 a pop. That's the special edition of a few games that came out last year.

So unless you want big brother up your rear end 24/7 to absolutely, positively make sure that there is no one machining weaponry by hand in your home, then come off it and ignore them entirely. Chances are if you never step inside a gun store, you'll be able to avoid them for your entire life.

Also, you could blame Italy for the enhancements made towards weapon smithing if you really wanted to:

Beretta: Nailing You From Afar Since 1526 est.

Also one of the top ten oldest companies still in operation to this day so what exactly does that tell you? You'll never, ever win the gun argument because your ancestors have been trying to for over five centuries with no luck.

On topic: I like the amendments as they are right now. I'd have to delve into them in further detail to come up with something to gripe about.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

The amendments do not need to be removed currently. We might want to have amendments added in the near future that helps ensure the rights of certain individuals in society who tend to get shafted, but that's all that comes to mind at the moment. I'm not really enough into politics to have too much of a comment.

 

[lloebet]

For the record I never mentioned guns raising murder rates.
But if that's the tangent you want to go on, I used to live in Ireland where not even the cops can hold guns and there is a a large drop in crime rates there.
People don't commit crimes such as robbing banks, attacking schools etc. with:
steak knives
Pots
Pans
Scissors
Tables
Chairs
A Car
Any type of glass bottle
A toaster
A TV
Power tools
Hand tools
Leg of Lamb
An air conditioner
A dog
A fork
Lamps
or even your own appendages.

 

[twocows]

None of them. If I had to pick one that I did question, it would be the part of the first relating to the freedom of the press. I definitely don't agree with a completely free press in light of what much of the press does in modern times, though I don't know if that's what we currently have by law (there may be restrictions similar to those on free expression, e.g. libel, slander, etc). The purpose of having a free press is to prevent the government from forcing the press not to report on problems within the government or with government decisions. But it seems to me like we could just make that a specific protection that the press has rather than allowing complete freedom. I see no problem enumerating the freedoms a press must have and codifying it in an amendment.

The press these days is often extremely irresponsible. They're allowed to indict people in the court of public opinion (without even a semblance of evidence) and often end up ruining lives as a result. Then they issue some one-line retraction several months later that nobody notices, like that somehow negates all the damage they've done. They're sorry, really, they are! They're sorry all the way to the bank.

The freedom of the press to report on government and politics serves as an external check against the government. It's so that the people check the government with the press being the means by which they're able to do this (the propagation of information about the goings-on of the government). It's also important that the press be able to report somewhat freely on other matters of public interest. But they should not be able to ruin lives with poor investigation. Moreover, I don't think they should be free to push an agenda without making it completely obvious what their biases and interests are (I think it's unrealistic to expect that they won't have any biases or interests).

Conversely, I think that some of the other protections offered by the first have been tread upon a bit and that's generally a bad thing. The right of the people to peaceably assemble, for instance. Requiring a permit (under penalty of law) to assemble should pretty obviously count as interference with that right if you ask me. I understand that cities need to be able to respond and route around these sort of assemblies in advance so they can continue to operate, but it still openly defies the word, spirit, and intent of the amendment.

There are some other things with the first but generally these are more minor concerns.

As for the other amendments (in brief):
- I think the meaning of the second is about as plain as it can get and, without going into more detail, I will say that I support it fully
- I think fourth amendment protections should be expanded in several important ways
- I think fifth amendment protections should be expanded and better explained to citizens arrested by law enforcement
- I think that the public trial clause of the sixth ought to also have a corresponding private trial clause: the accused should be guaranteed the right to determine whether the trial should be private or public
- I think the protections afforded by the eighth should be enforced more than they currently are and expanded to protect more than they currently protect; I think some existing precedent defies the word, spirit, and intent of part of the amendment
- I think that many people need to be more aware of the tenth and what it means
- I disagree with precedent involving the first and thirteenth that states that the military draft is not included in the protections afforded by these
- I agree with Justice Thomas' opinion that the equal protection clause of the fourteenth forbids (or should forbid) programs like affirmative action
- I think the lessons of prohibition are forgotten more often than they should be
- I agree completely with the twenty-second

Think that's about it.

 

[CoffeeDrink]

For the record I never mentioned guns raising murder rates.
But if that's the tangent you want to go on, I used to live in Ireland where not even the cops can hold guns and there is a a large drop in crime rates there.
People don't commit crimes such as robbing banks, attacking schools etc. with:
steak knives
Pots
Pans
Scissors
Tables
Chairs
A Car
Any type of glass bottle
A toaster
A TV
Power tools
Hand tools
Leg of Lamb
An air conditioner
A dog
A fork
Lamps
or even your own appendages.

*shakes head sadly*

Actually. . . they do. Just because you yourself classify 'robbing a bank' as a crime, more people are killed with blunt objects over firearms in general. people do rob banks with knives. . . not to mention the 37 year old man in Japan that went on a ten minute knifing spree, leaving 8 children dead, wounding 13 other children and injuring 2 teachers. Fun (not so much) fact: If you do the math regarding the statistical average of kills per minute, you'd find that his average is higher than the Virginia Tech shootings.

Hand tools would fall into the blunt object category, I've had a report of a grandmother killing someone with a cast iron skillet, siccing dogs on people isn't anything new, a woman killed her husband with a frozen leg of lamb, toasters (see: electrocutions), dropping air conditioners and Television sets on people can be seen as 'dangerous' and 'irresponsible'. Cars and motor vehicles (see: vehicular homicide and manslaughter). Chair legs and table legs also provide easy access to blunt weaponry.

Bar fights (see: glass bottle), scissors (see: eye gouging and throat stabbing), etc. and before you go on another tangent on how people don't or can't commit crimes with these items: a man robbed the local market where I was currently residing in Washinton. . . with a Swingline stapler. A stapler.

Also see: pen and pencil attacks. Stationary supplies is dangerous stuff. Fun fact (not so much): Lorena Bobbitt cut off her husband John's, ahem, Johnson with a kitchen knife. Here's a tip that police are given in their inner circles: Anything and everything can become a weapon. Don't discount what I say because it's ridiculous. Ever hear of the Hot Coffee Bandit? Well, he throws boiling coffee on the tellers and takes their money. True story.

Did I get them all?

. . .and as I said before the United States leads the world in it's consumption of illicit drugs, leaving Ireland in the dust, so making the argument that crime is simply lower due to the lack of guns is quite ridiculous. Crime is lower because you don't have Jose Escobars (generic drug lord name) running around too much over there. Bad guys like guns and I'm sure you'll find your own residential terrorists (IRA) love them very much.

So, in short: people can commit a crime with anything. You see guitar string, they see a garrote. You see a pillow, they see a suffocation weapon. You see a pen, they see a stabbing weapon, etc. et al

Also, rocks. People kill people with rocks even in this day and age. . . ta-ta.

Again: nothing I would change about the current amendments.

 

[Khawill]

Drinking age should be lowered. I've had this conversation with both my parents and they agree with me. At 18 you are given voting rights, the duty to serve the military when needed (or if you join for yourself) and you are expected to move out or go to college. The problem is that with a drinking age of 21, you are
A) Already ignoring the age, and have been drinking for years
B) hhave waited a long time, and are now joining group A, except you don't know your limits like they do
C) Probably never going to drink, therefore it doesn't matter to you either way.

I would also want tabacco to be illegal.

 

[Lizardo]

I have no problem with the second amendment in and of itself, but I do see gun control - which, despite what the pro-gun lobby would have people believe, does not equate to wanting to take away everyone's guns - as a necessity for a society that wants to call itself civilized. And the idea of an armed citizenry being an effective deterrent to the federal government is a fantasy. When people tried to apply it to reality (ex. the Whiskey Rebellion, U.S. Civil War, etc.) it's always failed miserably, and will only continue to do so as the capabilities of the U.S. military have only grown more advanced. I don't think the second amendment needs to be repealed, and I don't oppose people having guns for self-defense or even as a hobby, but I do think we need to recognize that it was created in a far different time period than the one we live in today. It needs an update befitting of a modern American society, not an 18th century one.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

Drinking age should be lowered.

[...]

I would also want tabacco to be illegal.

wat

You do realize they tried that once, but with alcohol, and it kind of didn't go down well at all? Tobacco is a huge part of culture, despite its dangers, and people would still use it regardless. Hell, look at other drugs, especially marijuana; I know even on these forums there's quite a few people who enjoy to break the law and toke up every so often. Restricting it so much that you inscribe it into the constitution is overkill, was a failed experiment and shouldn't really be engaged in again.

 

[Livewire]

If anything, I would add an amendment instituting term limits in both the federal legislatures and in the judiciary; the second amendment needs updating with vernacular that isn't 300+ years old if you expect to keep it in the modern, non 1789 era, and the First Amendment could use some literal provisions for hate speech and slander, as well as holding the press and media more accountable.

 

[twocows]

If anything, I would add an amendment instituting term limits in both the federal legislatures and in the judiciary; the second amendment needs updating with vernacular that isn't 300+ years old if you expect to keep it in the modern, non 1789 era, and the First Amendment could use some provisions for hate speech and slander, as well as holding the press and media more accountable.

Past rulings have established libel and slander (and some other things) as exceptions to first amendment free speech protections.

 

[Khawill]

wat

You do realize they tried that once, but with alcohol, and it kind of didn't go down well at all? Tobacco is a huge part of culture, despite its dangers, and people would still use it regardless. Hell, look at other drugs, especially marijuana; I know even on these forums there's quite a few people who enjoy to break the law and toke up every so often. Restricting it so much that you inscribe it into the constitution is overkill, was a failed experiment and shouldn't really be engaged in again.

Alcohol is different than tabacco. When alcohol was made illegal, people began to make their own, which was often more potent and dangerous than store-bought alcohol. Additionally, alcohol was ingrained into society, for thousands of years humans have consumed it. The transition from being legal to illegal was too sudden and poorly executed.

Meanwhile, tobacco is easy to grow right, meaning it would be hard to grow dangerous illegal tobacco. Additionally, currently American society has made tobacco seem less safe, and has greatly diminished the amount of consumers for it. A transition to making tobacco illegal could probably be done in just a few years if there was a big enough push for it. Especially if weed was to be made legal.

 

[Sir Codin]

the second amendment needs updating with vernacular that isn't 300+ years old if you expect to keep it in the modern,

I didn't realize it was already 2089. My how the time flies...

Nobutseriously, I agree with you here. I'm pretty sure the second amendment was intended to allow the average citizen the right to own firearms, but the vague wording has made people argue otherwise.

 

[Livewire]

I didn't realize it was already 2089. My how the time flies...

Nobutseriously, I agree with you here. I'm pretty sure the second amendment was intended to allow the average citizen the right to own firearms, but the vague wording has made people argue otherwise.

Contemporary wording would go a long way to understand and finally hammer out the amendment's role in 2015 society. When it's talking about militias, you know it might need some updating, lol. Adding something that makes sense given what times we live in, factoring in judicial precedent, and I think that would go a long way to shaping up the debate on guns in the US.

 

[MCMXCIX]

Alcohol is different than tabacco. When alcohol was made illegal, people began to make their own, which was often more potent and dangerous than store-bought alcohol. Additionally, alcohol was ingrained into society, for thousands of years humans have consumed it. The transition from being legal to illegal was too sudden and poorly executed.

Meanwhile, tobacco is easy to grow right, meaning it would be hard to grow dangerous illegal tobacco. Additionally, currently American society has made tobacco seem less safe, and has greatly diminished the amount of consumers for it. A transition to making tobacco illegal could probably be done in just a few years if there was a big enough push for it. Especially if weed was to be made legal.

Hold on a minute, tobbaco is easy to grow right? Than how would it be hard to grow it illegally? And besides, yeah smoking is still bad for you and people know that but that doesn't stop 42 million people from smoking according to the CDC. People would still grow tobacco illegally and people would still smoke. The transition eont be as easy as you think it is.

 

[Khawill]

Hold on a minute, tobbaco is easy to grow right? Than how would it be hard to grow it illegally? And besides, yeah smoking is still bad for you and people know that but that doesn't stop 42 million people from smoking according to the CDC. People would still grow tobacco illegally and people would still smoke. The transition eont be as easy as you think it is.

You're missing the word "dangerous" between grow and illegal.

Making things illegal isn't to outright stop the act. Cocaine, meth, and jaywalking are all illegal, but people still do it. Making things illegal allows people to understand what shouldn't be done in a country, and it is their choice to follow the law or be punished. The transition would probably go a lot more smoothly than you think, especially since there are a large amount of replacements for tobacco (Vapor cigs come to mind). A good deal of smokers I know, wish they could stop smoking. Making cigs illegal would make it hard for people to just get addicted to nicotine. (Yes there will be tobacco dealers, but they will not be as easy to buy from as your local gas station or Wal-Mart).

 

[Sir Codin]

Prohibition doesn't work.

Proven fact.

 

[MCMXCIX]

You're missing the word "dangerous" between grow and illegal.

Making things illegal isn't to outright stop the act. Cocaine, meth, and jaywalking are all illegal, but people still do it. Making things illegal allows people to understand what shouldn't be done in a country, and it is their choice to follow the law or be punished. The transition would probably go a lot more smoothly than you think, especially since there are a large amount of replacements for tobacco (Vapor cigs come to mind). A good deal of smokers I know, wish they could stop smoking. Making cigs illegal would make it hard for people to just get addicted to nicotine. (Yes there will be tobacco dealers, but they will not be as easy to buy from as your local gas station or Wal-Mart).

No I think your missing the point, What's the difference between your supposed "dangerous tobacco and the regular tobacco? Nothing. If tobbaco is easy to grow, than people will grow it for profit. Believe it or not, people can grow things out in the wild without anybody knowing. Although there are alternatives, They wouldn't be available either because those products still contain tobbaco and since you suggested we ban tobbaco we would have to ban those products as well. Which would leave the market wide open for illegal activity. And even if people know it's wrong it won't stop them. Yeah it would make it harder to get addicted to nicotine, but it wouldn't erase the problem. And it wouldn't be easy to just get rid of tobbaco. If people want to smoke, nobodies stopping you (Except if you are under 18, in which case the government is stopping you.)

 

[Star-Lord]

I'll never pretend to understand how the right to own guns is a constitutional right considering other first nations don't have it lmfao

 

[Khawill]

No I think your missing the point, What's the difference between your supposed "dangerous tobacco and the regular tobacco? Nothing. If tobbaco is easy to grow, than people will grow it for profit. Believe it or not, people can grow things out in the wild without anybody knowing. Although there are alternatives, They wouldn't be available either because those products still contain tobbaco and since you suggested we ban tobbaco we would have to ban those products as well. Which would leave the market wide open for illegal activity. And even if people know it's wrong it won't stop them. Yeah it would make it harder to get addicted to nicotine, but it wouldn't erase the problem. And it wouldn't be easy to just get rid of tobbaco. If people want to smoke, nobodies stopping you (Except if you are under 18, in which case the government is stopping you.)

No, I didn't miss the point. The comparison Between dangerous and normal tobacco is that there really is no dangerous version of tobacco. I was comparing it to alcohol, which can be homebrewwd dangerously (Moonshine for example). I wasn't implying there was no such thing as homegrown tobacco either.

And by your logic , smoking shouldn't have a legal age, because any teenager could easily get their hands on it illegally. The point of making things illegal is to reduce the amount of people doing the act, no law could completely stop everyone because in the end, humans have the ability to break laws and do whatever they want.

You had to have seen all those anti smoking commercials, hell, you can't even advertise tobacco anymore. Let's not forget how expensive it is. Tobacco is already being phased out from our culture, or at least there are attempts, and there are less and less reasons to keep tobacco legal. Easy is a relative term, and making tobacco illegal today would be far easier than making alcohol illegal was back in prohibition era.