"Disagreeing has never been so much fun!"
Uphold and Abide by the Constitution
Constitution is Outdated/Irrelevant
Are you okay with the continued destruction of the US Constitution or do you believe our Founders got it right?
Neutral Fans: (0)
Side A Comment
mama kaz - 1/18/10 @ 8:26 AM:
My apologies fellow tea drinker. I read all your posts and based my opinions of you on that. It's nice to know more about you. Obviously you are mostly concerned with automatic weapons. The funny thing is I've never wanted to own one until now. I never felt the need. That's what scares me the most. I agree that Bush way overstepped his bounds after 9/11 but we had also never been attacked the way we were then. I disagree with a lot of what he did, especially his last four years.There are many things going on right now that are making me feel uneasy. I don't like the fact that I don't feel safe in my own country and it's not the terrorists I'm most afraid of. I never thought I would see what I'm seeing in my lifetime. I am voicing my opinions to everyone. I'm on a first name basis with my republican reps. I have worked on many campaigns and, when a candidate emerges that I can believe in, I plan to work my butt off to get them elected. Incidentally, I was a democrat most of my life!
Side A Comment
Jeff - 1/17/10 @ 10:56 PM:
wow this one has got really heated (Breaks out the ref shirt) you know I dont read much nor do I listen to politics (maybe a little too laid back I guess)If we cared anything about this country we stand behind it and what the Constitution stands for to each one of us.
Side A Comment
mama kaz - 1/17/10 @ 9:03 PM:
I didn't go to college but I keep my eyes wide open and pay attention to what's going on around me all the time. I am in my fifties and I have seen the world around me change a lot through the years. I've also had the pleasure of learning the history of every day living dating back to the 1800's through the eyes of my great grandparents and grandparents. Sometimes it's best to stop talking and start listening. I've learned everything that really matters that way. That being said, if you aren't concerned about what is going on in our government today, then you need to go to Starbucks and get a triple shot of whatever it is you get there. (I'm a tea drinker...) It's true that amendments have been made to the constitution over the years but our government is trying to put a whole new engine in it. Obama said he wanted to "fundamentally change the US" and that is exactly what he's doing. They aren't tweaking it, they are re writing it. The change our country needs is basic. We must stop the corruption at all levels of government. We have lobbyists, unions, and corrupt government officials running the country. "We the people" are supposed to be doing it and we have fallen down on the job. Changing the constitution isn't going to solve our problems. It will only compound them. We can argue perspective all day long but the truth is, power is shifting quickly and heavily from the people to the government. If you are happy with that then there are a lot of countries you could go live in that already operate that way. But for those of us who want to keep the power with the people we have a job to do. We have to fight with everything we have to keep the power where it belongs in a free country. As a middle aged grandma I will do whatever it takes to fight for my country and the freedom I have always had. I already vote, write and call my representatives. I've gone to Washington DC, attended tea parties, and I talk to everyone who will listen. For the first time in my life, this doesn't seem to be enough. I don't need a college degree to see what's going on, just good old common sense. If you want to hand over your freedoms go ahead. I'll do whatever it takes to keep mine.
LIBERAL - 1/17/10 @ 9:35 PM:
Rival | Side B
There is nothing wrong with keeping your eyes wide open. I agree you should. I also agree that you should do whatever it takes to keep certain rights, but placing a limit on something like the sale of a fully automatic assault rifle is not taking away your right to keep and bear arms. This is just one example. Let's not pretend that Obama was the first to "re-write" any of our fundamental rights as American citizens. Only a few years ago a certain President basically "re-wrote" the entire process of engaging a nation into war without so much as the consent of the only body of government that is supposed to do so. Here's a hint: It's not supposed to be the Executive branch. As always, if you don't like the way things are being done in Washington then change it. I don't necessarily like what he's doing either. I might not even re-elect him at this point, but instead of attending tea parties perhaps you should be attending your local republican party chapter and voicing your opinions there. Not to mention you could volunteer to help with functions. I don't need a college degree to see what's going on either, but I'm certainly glad I got one any way. By the way, I'm very concerned about what is going on in our government today, so please don't assume that I am not. As it happens I'm a tea drinker myself. The single greatest power we have as American citizens is the right to vote. It is how we ultimately have the most profound affect on our government. You can argue with me all day, and all night, but it will NEVER change how I see things. The funny thing is I may very well be voting for the same person you vote for in the next election. So continue to argue with me all you like. :-) I welcome it. Make no mistake that I love my country very much. I served in the military for that exact reason. I was more than willing to lay down my life for this country so that you could continue to have the rights you are so passionate about. So please don't act as if I don't care about what is happening in this country, because I guarantee you I've paid my dues. I've shown my patriotism to this country by my service to it.
Side B Comment
LIBERAL - 1/17/10 @ 8:59 PM:
You may refer to me as you please, but just so you know I not only received a degree in secondary education with a major in history and a minor in performing arts, but I was also a teacher for well over 2 years before returning to college. I don't claim to be an expert, but I certainly am far more versed in U.S. history than most. So you'll forgive me if I seem tested by someone who throws out quotes like a presidential first toss at a baseball game. Badly. You are correct about one thing. I don't listen to audio books, because I'm perfectly capable of doing it on my own. I am well aware that the right to keep and bear arms was not the trigger for the American Revolution, but rather one of many. So please don't assume so, because you would be incorrect. We have never needed to keep arms under the possible threat of tyranny by our government, and never will. Since you like quotes so much, here's one. "Schemes to subvert the liberties of a great community REQUIRE TIME to mature them for execution. An army, so large as seriously to menace those liberties, could only be formed by progressive augmentations; which would suppose, not merely a temporary combination between the legislature and executive, but a continued conspiracy for a series of time. Is it probable that such a combination would exist at all? Is it probable that it would be persevered in, and transmitted along through all the successive variations in a representative body, which biennial elections would naturally produce in both houses? Is it presumable, that every man, the instant he took his seat in the national Senate or House of Representatives, would commence a traitor to his constituents and his country? Can it be supposed that there would not be found one man, discerning enough to detect so atrocious a conspiracy, or bold or honest enough to apprise his constituents of their danger? It is impossible that the people could be long deceived: and the destruction of the project, and of the projectors would quickly follow the discovery." Alexander Hamilton (in a letter to the people of New York) The only people who who truly believe in the possibility of a government turning to tyranny are those few idiots who hole themselves up in compounds claiming they will cleanse the whole of America for us. It's these morons who have access to weapons like assault rifles that should truly concern us all. I don't want my right to bear arms taken away. I consider this a right for every American, but when you claim you need an assault rifle to hunt or to protect your home and loved ones, someone seriously needs a psychological evaluation. While I would never presume to discuss the fine details of business management with you Mr. Kazinec, please don't presume to do the same with me on this subject. I know very little about business management, but I am VERY knowledgeable of this one. If I sound arrogant about this subject it is not because I consider myself an expert, but because I abhor when others try to sound as if they are, and clearly are NOT.
Vulcan - 12/28/11 @ 12:27 PM:
Rival | Side A
I love how you cite the fact that you were a teacher and think that makes you any more credible. The one thing I remember about a lot of my teachers from when I was growing up was that they tended to push a liberal agenda. Since then I have learned that much of what they said in pursuit of this goal was merely rhetoric based in fear and weak minded emotional response. Their main goal as teachers was to indoctrinate weak minded people with their unrealistic idealism and lies. That being said, I would like to be the first to commend you (Rick) on being a fine example of a teacher as I remember them.
Side B Comment
LIBERAL - 1/17/10 @ 5:35 PM:
By the way I'm very well aware of the principles that surrounded the arguments concerning the keeping up of "standing armies". I know several states made arguments and even made it illegal at times to hold such a force available during times of peace, but if you've read anything at all concerning this, then you know very well it was mainly because of the burden it would place on the national treasury. I'm not so naive to believe that they never questioned the probability of an attack within our own borders or the takeover of our government by one of our own militias. I know very well they considered the possibility. I also know that they dismissed the idea for a very good reason. The operation of our system of government made it all but impossible. As it would require time to conceive of such a plot, plan it, and then place it into action without dissidence from its own planners or even those around them was found to be ridiculous and impractical due to the very system they would have intended to overthrow. Presidents who served 4 year terms, representatives who served 2 year terms, and senators who served 6 year terms. This would also depend upon the ability of all would-be traitors to be re-elected in order to maintain the scheme! All of this had already been discussed and ultimately discarded by such men as James Madison, John Mays, and Alexander Hamilton for the sheer absurdity of its necessary framework. The only REAL threat any colonist or representative considered a danger from within was the possibility of Indian attacks from the west. Or the instigation of these attacks by a foreign power like Britain or Spain. So please save yourself the time and effort of replying simply on the basis of the possibility of a coup by our own militia or government, because there is NO basis.
Side B Comment
LIBERAL - 1/17/10 @ 4:05 PM:
I was a History major Mr. Kazinec. So I do not need a history lesson. Thank you very much. YOU obviously need take a little longer look at something we all like to call a book. While you're looking at it I highly suggest you READ it too. That might help with your inability to understand what was the real cause for the Articles of Confederation, Constitution, and Revolutionary War. The right to keep and bear arms was in response to the British actions of not allowing colonists to keep arms and the eventual embargo on arms to the colonists from other European nations. It had NOTHING to do with colonists keeping arms or refusing the right to bear arms from one another. I get so SICK and TIRED of people who basically read just enough to consider themselves experts on something like the history of a particular era when really they've read the equivalent of a few pages of footnotes. Your comment concerning people needing arms in order to take down tyrannical powers is absurd at best. The 2nd Amendment was penned so that at the time (18th century) colonists could carry the necessary arms to combat the British or any other FOREIGN power that threatened their freedoms. It was NOT penned to make certain we could bring down our own. And to believe that it was is nothing short of irresponsible and ignorant.
Ryan Kazinec - 1/17/10 @ 7:38 PM:
Rival | Side A
Considering your blatant arrogance on the matter we'll refer to you as Historian Rick. We're very lucky to have a historian participating on the website.
I will note that I'm a business major but make no claims of being a business extraordinaire. I also minored in Criminal Justice but make no claims of being a judge or police officer.
You are dead right I should read more, in fact I can't stand reading. However, I love listening as I do for a majority of the 20+ hours of driving I do each week. They have a new technology, it's called Audio Books. You might want to give them a listen but make sure you understand what is being said.
"The right to keep and bear arms was in response to the British actions of not allowing colonists to keep arms and the eventual embargo on arms to the colonists from other European nations"
This was indeed one of the triggers(so to speak) to the war but I'm not seeing any facts to support the argument that the 2nd amendment was solely derived from this alone.
Absurd at best? Do you think our founders were ignorant enough to not consider what would happen when the checks and balances fail as a number of them knew would happen?
In your second comment you refer to the checks and balances but fail to acknowledge the corruption of our government. The vote buying legislation that has been taking place for years. Fortunately people are waking up to the corruption and finally willing to say no thank you to the theft that is taking place. It's pretty hard to lose an election when you've stolen millions of dollars from the masses and distributed them directly into their districts.
Thomas Jefferson:
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms...The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Letter to William S. Smith 13 Nov 1787 (Jefferson, On Democracy p. 20, 1939; Padover, editor)
"The few cases wherein these things (proposed Bill of Rights) may do evil, cannot be weighed against the multitude where the want of them will do evil...I hope therefore a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the federal government..." (letter to Madison 31 July 1788, The Papers of James Madison, Hobson & Rutland, p.11:212)
"When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
George Mason:
"Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised...to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia..." (In Virginia's Ratifying Convention, Elliot p.3:379-380)
James Madison:
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
Richard Henry Lee:
"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..." 1788 (Federal Farmer)
Of course there were many of the founders who's quotes were more in tune with personal defense but to claim there wasn't consideration for the possibility of fighting against tyranny is inaccurate.
Again the terms (Elections every 2, 4, and 6 years) you list are sufficient protection when the separation of powers are respected and when legislation follows what is permitted by the constitution.
I won't PRETEND to be a HISTORIAN but have been doing my own reading (Mainly Listening) throughout the last year and a half and will continue to do so.
I will note that I'm a business major but make no claims of being a business extraordinaire. I also minored in Criminal Justice but make no claims of being a judge or police officer.
You are dead right I should read more, in fact I can't stand reading. However, I love listening as I do for a majority of the 20+ hours of driving I do each week. They have a new technology, it's called Audio Books. You might want to give them a listen but make sure you understand what is being said.
"The right to keep and bear arms was in response to the British actions of not allowing colonists to keep arms and the eventual embargo on arms to the colonists from other European nations"
This was indeed one of the triggers(so to speak) to the war but I'm not seeing any facts to support the argument that the 2nd amendment was solely derived from this alone.
Absurd at best? Do you think our founders were ignorant enough to not consider what would happen when the checks and balances fail as a number of them knew would happen?
In your second comment you refer to the checks and balances but fail to acknowledge the corruption of our government. The vote buying legislation that has been taking place for years. Fortunately people are waking up to the corruption and finally willing to say no thank you to the theft that is taking place. It's pretty hard to lose an election when you've stolen millions of dollars from the masses and distributed them directly into their districts.
Thomas Jefferson:
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms...The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Letter to William S. Smith 13 Nov 1787 (Jefferson, On Democracy p. 20, 1939; Padover, editor)
"The few cases wherein these things (proposed Bill of Rights) may do evil, cannot be weighed against the multitude where the want of them will do evil...I hope therefore a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the federal government..." (letter to Madison 31 July 1788, The Papers of James Madison, Hobson & Rutland, p.11:212)
"When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
George Mason:
"Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised...to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia..." (In Virginia's Ratifying Convention, Elliot p.3:379-380)
James Madison:
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
Richard Henry Lee:
"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..." 1788 (Federal Farmer)
Of course there were many of the founders who's quotes were more in tune with personal defense but to claim there wasn't consideration for the possibility of fighting against tyranny is inaccurate.
Again the terms (Elections every 2, 4, and 6 years) you list are sufficient protection when the separation of powers are respected and when legislation follows what is permitted by the constitution.
I won't PRETEND to be a HISTORIAN but have been doing my own reading (Mainly Listening) throughout the last year and a half and will continue to do so.
TNinfidel - 1/17/10 @ 8:09 PM:
Rival | Side A
Got to love these elitist liberals. Rick should consider moving to Europe, Russia, or North Korea. These places have no problem violating their peoples liberty and freedom. Seriously, go, no one will stop you.
Side B Comment
LIBERAL - 1/16/10 @ 6:17 PM:
While I believe in the foundation of the Constitution itself I find that as times change so must the American people. The Constitution is one of our most sacred and brilliant American documents ever created for exactly the reason that it can and should be changed when necessary. Example: 19th Amendment. Amendments like the Second Amendment are open to interpretation simply because change is inevitable. There have been significant advances in weaponry since 1791. I believe that every American deserves to keep and bear arms for their own protection. However, I do not believe defending your home and yourself requires an automatic rifle. To believe that a document like the Constitution should not be changed is simply naive. We must depend on those selected few Americans that ultimately can determine the course of a nation by changing the Constitution. That means being well informed BEFORE you head to the voting polls. Remember that as an American citizen YOU have the right to vote. You ultimately help select the men and women who make these decisions. So, make an informed one.
Ryan Kazinec - 1/17/10 @ 10:14 AM:
Rival | Side A
There is a tremendous difference between amending the destroying. The reality is that the constitution is considered a road block and not a foundation by many of those living among us and many of those leading our nation.
In regards to the 2nd Amendment I find it quite aggravating that so many people have selective memory. Let's take a trip back in time, shall we?
Shortly after failing with the Articles of Confederation largely in part because the Government was given almost no power (Hence Closer to Anarchy) some fed up colonist stood up against a tyrannical government who was trying to impose taxes from across the pond. What triggered the uprising? Was is the taxation alone? No, it was the attempt to disarm the public.
After fighting for and winning our Independence through the use of weapons and spent blood our constitution was drafted. The 2nd amendment was put in place for the people to always have the power to take over tyrannical governments to preserve Freedom. To claim it's only to protect yourself is ignorant. The weapons of the people should be comparable to that of the military or the people have no power. Tyrannical leaders look at protections like the constitution as a road block. Fortunately is takes super majorities in both the house and the senate to amend our great constitution but that doesn't stop evil men from manipulating new ways to destroy our constitution. Patriot Act? Executive Orders? Health Care Takeover?
You are right about one thing. We all should make a very educated decision when voting for our leaders. To vote for upholding Freedom and Liberty or for social justice which can't coexist with Freedom and Liberty.
In regards to the 2nd Amendment I find it quite aggravating that so many people have selective memory. Let's take a trip back in time, shall we?
Shortly after failing with the Articles of Confederation largely in part because the Government was given almost no power (Hence Closer to Anarchy) some fed up colonist stood up against a tyrannical government who was trying to impose taxes from across the pond. What triggered the uprising? Was is the taxation alone? No, it was the attempt to disarm the public.
After fighting for and winning our Independence through the use of weapons and spent blood our constitution was drafted. The 2nd amendment was put in place for the people to always have the power to take over tyrannical governments to preserve Freedom. To claim it's only to protect yourself is ignorant. The weapons of the people should be comparable to that of the military or the people have no power. Tyrannical leaders look at protections like the constitution as a road block. Fortunately is takes super majorities in both the house and the senate to amend our great constitution but that doesn't stop evil men from manipulating new ways to destroy our constitution. Patriot Act? Executive Orders? Health Care Takeover?
You are right about one thing. We all should make a very educated decision when voting for our leaders. To vote for upholding Freedom and Liberty or for social justice which can't coexist with Freedom and Liberty.
Side A Comment
mama kaz - 12/1/09 @ 5:20 PM:
The constitution is like an insurance policy for the continued freedom that has always made our country us so different and successful. When you remove freedoms (as our present leaders are doing) you begin the destruction of free enterprise which is the one thing that has always attracted the best and brightest to this country. This leaves us with the very important question, "why" ? Why would your leaders want to dismantle the very document that has made us the best and most powerful country in the world? Think about it.
Side A Comment
Ryan Kazinec - 11/19/09 @ 7:05 PM:
I wanted to take a brief minute to thank Mr. Obama, his agenda, the horrible economy (Attributed to MANY), the corrupt politicians (Of all parties), and many others for waking me up. I will never again be an ignorant American. I will never again vote for a letter but will submit my votes based on a number of variables (Especially Voting Record). I have and will continue to learn about the founding of the US, the founders, as well as the more recent history that's led us to this boiling point of entitlement purchased votes.
Side A Comment
Ryan Kazinec - 11/19/09 @ 6:54 PM:
Here's what the speaker of the house thinks about the constitution. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxXy-r7aatA
Dennis Plucinik - 11/21/09 @ 11:45 PM:
the only thing she says is "are you serious?" lol - this is like Obama's "my muslim faith" video you posted a while back haha
Ryan Kazinec - 11/22/09 @ 8:38 AM:
Ally | Side A
Very different. I've seen the video of this as well. Difference being in Obama's video the clip was taken out of context and took on a different meaning when watching the full video. Ms. Pelosi's comment doesn't take on a different meaning. The witch has no respect for the constitution, end of story.
Ryan Kazinec - 11/22/09 @ 8:42 AM:
Ally | Side A
I don't know about you but when someone asks me a legitimate question I don't respond "Are you serious?" That would STRONGLY suggest that I think their question is ignorant or inappropriate. Which his question was not.
