Is the Constitution old and outdated?

[Buckaroo]

http://www.nwi.com/articles/2009/03/03/updates/breaking_news/doc49ad6c263c60b820012077.txt


LAPORTE | Student Andrew Lang told gun supporters their beliefs are out of touch and he would not feel safe with firearms in a city building.

His comments drew boos from gun rights activists who packed LaPorte City Hall Monday urging their constitutional right to bear arms be preserved.

Lang said it's not the 1770s when the British were coming and, nowadays, there ought to be exceptions.

"You guys are bringing up stuff about the constitution. It's a little bit old and outdated. This is when our country was under attack from a foreign force," said Lang.

Gun supporters had the last laugh.

By a 4-3 vote, the City Council voted against a proposed ban on firearms at City Hall and any other city owned building.

There was nothing outlined in the ordinance providing for metal detectors or security officers.

That left opponents feeling vulnerable, saying law abiding citizens would leave their guns at home or in their vehicle before venturing into a city building and would be a sitting duck to anyone who started firing.

"People have a right to protect themselves," said LaPorte resident Randy England.

There were also fears the gun ban would eventually spread into private homes and businesses, giving criminals access to guns on the black market a major leg up.

"If any one of you were in trouble, I would jump in front of you with my gun," said Coolspring Township Trustee Dennis Metheny.

"Many well intentioned laws don't work," said Bill Johnson, who lives in Crown Point.

Mayor Kathy Chroback said other local units of government all the way up to the state and federal levels ban firearms from their buildings.

Chroback said she felt opponents didn't seem to understand the ban was just for city owned buildings.

"We tried to explain that a couple of times," Chroback said.

There were rumors Chroback was recently threatened but on several occasions during the meeting she denied there was any truth to those claims.

Todd Reinert, manager of a gun store in Hudson Lake called Class 3 Sales, invited Chroback to take charge of her personal protection by carrying a gun and be trained on using it.

"Come on in. I'll be happy to sell you a firearm and give you all of the range time you want for free," Reinert said.

Sorry Andrew but the Constitution is in no way old or outdated!

Buckaroo

[chadbag]

I think that free speech stuff is outdated too. That was for when we had evil oppressive governments we needed to speak out against.

And that freedom of religion bit too. That is for when they were trying to force us all into a state sponsored religion (man made global warming anyone?)

Chad

[RTA]

You know what? I agree with little student Andrew. Except I don't think the part about the right to keep and bear arms is wrong, I think the part about freely opening your mouth without fear of consequences is wrong. So really, its just a small technical detail. I wonder how he'll feel when I use MY right to limit HIS rights, as he obviously wants to use HIS right to free speech to attack MY right to self defense...maybe I should use my right to self defense to defend myself from his and other little coward's attack on my rights. Even luckier for me, Andrew and his kind think weapons are icky and have to rely upon the state enforcing their will.

I wonder how little Andrew would feel about that.

EDIT: Eguns beat me to it, great minds think alike.

[Business_Casual]

Help me understand something - what is the point of posting that article? Did you expect people on M4Carbine.net to learn that our rights aren't old and outdated? Did you think you would educate us, with a clever bait-and-switch title for the thread? What exactly was the point?

M_P

[A-Bear680]

:cool:
Another good news story.


http://www.nwi.com/articles/2009/03/03/updates/breaking_news/doc49ad6c263c60b820012077.txt



Sorry Andrew but the Constitution is in no way old or outdated!

Buckaroo

We are still winning.
Check out the hysteria from the Brady Bunch:
www.bradycampaign.com

" The gun lobby's amendment...would gut the District's gun laws".

What's not to like about that?
:D

[LittleRedToyota]

"You guys are bringing up stuff about the constitution. It's a little bit old and outdated. This is when our country was under attack from a foreign force," said Lang.

ummm...our country was not under attack from a foreign force. the people of our country (british citizens at the time) were under attack from (what was then) our own government (the british crown).

it was all about the people protecting ourselves against tyranical government, not some invading foreign country...enemies domestic, not foreign.

and it still is.

this lang guy needs a history lesson.

[BAC]

Am I one of the few who think the US Constitution could use some polishing up? There are a lot of things that could be phrased much better, and leave no room for error in understanding. For example, as originally written, the Bill of Rights wasn't even needed because the federal gov't doesn't have the authority to infringe upon any of those recognized rights... Then there's that whole judicial review thing... and interstate commerce thing... etc...


-B

[thopkins22]

I don't know, we could ditch the 16th and 17th amendments and I'd be pretty happy. Perhaps we could put the 9th and 10th amendments in all caps or bold.

I don't know though, even touching it in this political climate could be very dangerous for liberty.

[LittleRedToyota]

Am I one of the few who think the US Constitution could use some polishing up? There are a lot of things that could be phrased much better, and leave no room for error in understanding. For example, as originally written, the Bill of Rights wasn't even needed because the federal gov't doesn't have the authority to infringe upon any of those recognized rights... Then there's that whole judicial review thing... and interstate commerce thing... etc...


i think it is actually pretty clear. people (especially SCOTUS) just need to stop pretending it says stuff it does not...and does not say stuff it does stay.

the interstate commerce thing is a good example...

regulate "commerce...among the several states" is actually pretty clear. people just pretend it isn't so that they can justify getting involved in issues other than just those where two or more states are having commerce with each other.

(notice, for example, it does not say "matters effecting commerce among the several states"...it is limited to actual commerce among the several states. but very few people seem to want to own up to that...SCOTUS certainly doesn't.)

[Abraxas]

http://www.nwi.com/articles/2009/03/03/updates/breaking_news/doc49ad6c263c60b820012077.txt




How pathetic.

[ZDL]

4-3 huh? :rolleyes:

[11Bravo]

I am of the mind that either the 18th and 21st be completely expunged or a 28th be added that states clearly that the Constitution should in no way be used to limit individual rights in any way.
It exists to limit the powers of the US government, not the governed.
Generally, I am opposed to gay marriage, but there absolutely should NOT be a constitutional amendment banning it.
Completely against the idea of the thing.

[kaiservontexas]

To true at the time it was British citizens/subjects fighting against the British government/empire. I do recall a party that happened outside of the late 1700s called the War of 1812. Then there is the whole WWII invasion of one of our islands, not a state (Alaska) at the time, Aleutian islands, and that happened during the 1940s. It seems once a century the U.S. finds some enemy invading it, albeit not successfully.

[Decon]

It is meant to be out dated and kept far away from the updaters

[thopkins22]

I am of the mind that either the 18th and 21st be completely expunged or a 28th be added that states clearly that the Constitution should in no way be used to limit individual rights in any way.
It exists to limit the powers of the US government, not the governed.
Generally, I am opposed to gay marriage, but there absolutely should NOT be a constitutional amendment banning it.
Completely against the idea of the thing.

If you'd just kill the 16th amendment, there would be no reason for the government to track it at all. It would revert to churches deciding, which is where it belongs.

[Abraxas]

So few have a understanding of the constitution that it amazes me that we still have it. I am thrilled that we do and I would be just beside myself with joy if we could follow it a little closer. I have a friend that politically agrees with me, that made the comment that he thought the constitution needed to be tweeked. I looked at him and asked why, to which he said that some of the stuff in it no longer applies. So I got out my copy and went over it with him and asked him just what is out dated. To which he replied " nothing I guess, I guess I did not understand the reasons behind what it said". It is just scary how little some know about the document that our country is based on. I am no constitutional scholar, but I have at least a cursory knowledge of the thing.

[thopkins22]

There are some parts of the Constitution of the Confederate States that I would like incorporated in ours. In fact if it wasn't so blatantly pro-slavery, I think it was a pretty good document.
Some good parts...

"Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title" We all understand this one.

"...nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry; and all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the Confederate States." No protectionism.

"The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the Confederate States" States couldn't give themselves special treatment like Iowa and New Hampshire do.

I had heard for years that it required students to get annual classes on the constitution, but I couldn't find that in the document.

[OH58D]

I guess I shouldn't be surprised anymore by such discussions. The obsolete Constitution analysis is showing up more and more, and being brought up by Americans much younger than my generation.

You starting tinkering with little pieces of the Constitution, you'll end up with a fractured document which can be swept aside by leftists with hidden Marxist agendas. You might see this in your lifetime. Forget about the many Patriots generations before who fought for your right to even have this discussion.

For the new generation who doen't value the Constitution as a sacred document of Freedom, it's probably time to move on with new Progressive ideas and you have a hip new President to lead you to the zenith of collective thought. Hell, 65 million people voted for a Community Organizer and co-founder of Public Allies, an organization which gives you 13 months of training in Marxist philosophy, and all the other isms including, Racism, Sexism, Feminism.................
I guess America has gotten the President it deserves since it was a majority vote. I find the guy hard to stomach, and he will probably take us all on the express elevator ride to Hell before he rebuilds his new socialist utopia.

Personally, I like the America I grew in where you always knew you could achieve anything based on your own effort and desires, not on some Socialist government which invades all aspects of your life. Those of you who prefer to slice and dice the Constitution, have at it.

I have fought in foreign engagements three different times, I guess maybe when it comes to defending the Constitution on our home turf, it will be a lot easier.

OH58D

[JLM]

"You guys are bringing up stuff about the constitution. It's a little bit old and outdated"

EPIC fail.