-49

The laws of the Constitution of the United States of America do not change over time; the "living, breathing Constitution" is bound by the same ideals that the tyrannical king held when he wanted more control over the colonies.

23%Agree77%Disagree
JeffGigliottis avatar Politics
Share
1 17

I don't think you actually know what the constitution is. It was written by a group of people who opposed the King's ideals.

This user has deactivated their account.
@1891070

Thanks to the consistution it is not Orwell's "1984" either(until you short sited type let the document be dismantled)

i'm thinking this was written as a relation to the gun controversy in the united states. if that's it, then i disagree because i believe it is outdated (2nd amendment). it's very true that during a certain time, society has views that correlate with what is acceptable, needed and is based on how other parts of the world views things. the 2nd amendment made perfect sense when it was written and i would't disagree or question it at all. today is a different story however. much like how religion was necessary and made sense 100+ years ago, it's something that's not necessary today for a society to function perfectly fine.

Anonymous 0Reply
@i'm thinking this was written as a relation to the gun controversy in the united states. if that's it, then i...

I absolutely doubt it. Despite all the new knowledge and customs in the world, people simply don't change. You couldn't trust people in charge thousands of years ago, and you can't trust people in charge now. The desire for power is ingrained in people, that won't disappear.

Also, consider this: If we didn't have to worry about the Government becoming so radically corrupt, why are they trying to take away the only means we have to prevent them from becoming radically corrupt?

Look, tight gun control laws DO NOT WORK for reducing crime. They absolutely do not work for that purpose. Laws only affect law-abiding citizens, and law-abiding citizens will only raise their guns in self-defense. Asking a law-abiding citizen to relinquish their means of self-defense is the most suspicious thing in the world. It means that the Government either has an ulterior motive and should not be trusted, or they want to take away our guns in an effort to reduce crime. This makes them idiots, which also means they should not be trusted.

@Mike_Hawk I absolutely doubt it. Despite all the new knowledge and customs in the world, people simply don't change. You...

is this alan jones? you shouldn't be so paranoid. yes the citizens of a country can and will keep a government in check. though i think that the united states is not at risk of any kind of government takeover at all b/c it's a democracy. i can't stand these paranoid conspiracy theorists that think that the government is out to get them. they're there so that the people don't go ape. it's ridiculous to think that the government is trying to suspiciously take complete control of its citizens. they're imposing gun control due to the fact that the people themselves are getting out of control and the deaths caused by guns is horrific and shameful. but lets not hijack this post. i guessed it was related to guns. only the op can confirm that.

Anonymous 0Reply
@is this alan jones? you shouldn't be so paranoid. yes the citizens of a country can and will keep a government in...

How does this country being a democracy mean ANYTHING? If we don't have guns, why would they listen to us? That's even more ridiculous than what I think. That's blind trust that gets people killed.

@is this alan jones? you shouldn't be so paranoid. yes the citizens of a country can and will keep a government in...

This topic is about the Constitution; the 2nd Amendment is only part of it. The Supreme Court can have votes different votes about every section, so I don't really mind what's debated.

many of the ideals come from the magna carta. Is that what you are getting at?

@VicZinc many of the ideals come from the magna carta. Is that what you are getting at?

No. It's the fact that people give Constitution new meaning and justifying it because "it's what the country needs at this point of time," which translates to "the Constitution is outdated," that infuriates me.

@JeffGigliotti No. It's the fact that people give Constitution new meaning and justifying it because "it's what the country needs...

I can see the point of this comment, but that's not what the post says (which probably explains the downvotes). You wrote it as if our Constitution still holds the same ideals that the King of England was using to control the colonies. The Constitution didn't even exist when the king still wanted more control of the colonies. Maybe it would have been better to say the Constitution is still bound by the same ideals of the founding fathers? Or based on your comment below, maybe you should have said that people are trying to abuse the Constitution the way the King of England did during his rule over the colonies?

_Jojo_s avatar _Jojo_ Disagree +5Reply

I guess I see where you are going. Constitution = anti-tyranny = unchanging principles. Is that close?

The Constitution was writen to protect the individual freedoms that the king was trying to take away. During the time of British Imperialism, the law was interpreted loosely giving different meanings to the same set of words; the United States is facing this problem today.

Disagree with how it's worded, but I agree with what you meant.

Please   login   or signup   to leave a comment.