The Political Fray - Political Forum
Go Back   Political Fray > The Political Fray > History

History Historical Discussions - For discussion about the great (and not-so-great) happenings of history


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 23rd, 2010, 06:42 PM   #1
Representative
 
Joined: Dec 2009
From: Canada
Posts: 119

Do you really have to follow the constitution fully?

Do you have to follow your country's bill of rights or their constitution fully?

I mean I'm all for constitutions. They put strong laws for the better of the people. The reason I'm asking this is because I was reading the second amendment of the US Bill of Rights - the one which gives people the right to possess firearms. I mean it was fine in practicality, but isn't stuff like that out of date?

In Canada, we had an entirely new constitution in 1982. I mean I'm not trying to say the US constitution is bad, because it isn't. I'm just saying should it change and do you have to follow it word for word?
el canadiano is offline  
Old May 23rd, 2010, 06:46 PM   #2
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: us
Posts: 5,841

Of course it should be followed completely. If not, then why even have it? If you can not follow something when you don't want to, then it has no purpose. Furthermore, there is almost always a way to legally change a Constitution. In the United States, there is a formal amendment process and if a change really is deemed necessary, it is possible.

On a side note, I completely disagree on the gun issue. I find it absurd and almost sad that some people have forgotten how short it really has been since most modern states came out of bloody revolution or war and how some states are still going through such events and most likely will continue to do so. This blind faith that modern governments are the be all and end all is a slippery slope.
myp is offline  
Old May 23rd, 2010, 06:51 PM   #3
Representative
 
Joined: Dec 2009
From: Canada
Posts: 119

Right. If you look at Canada for example (just because I'm Canadian), having a gun in the mall for example is illegal. I realize that we got our independence because the British passed our bill quickly so that they can get a dog tax motion in, but still. Another point I was going to make is that times change, and so do needs, don't they?
el canadiano is offline  
Old May 23rd, 2010, 06:57 PM   #4
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: us
Posts: 5,841

Certainly times change and needs do, but the need for guns is present so long as the government has guns too. Remember that the primary purpose of the bill of rights (the first 10 amendments) was to protect the people's rights against GOVERNMENT. The second amendment was primarily a protection against government, in the worst case scenario where people would have to fight and overthrow government. If the government has guns, the people should too- no?

As for public carrying (such as at a mall)- that is illegal in a lot of places in the United States too- it depends on the state.
myp is offline  
Old May 24th, 2010, 06:11 AM   #5
Representative
 
Joined: Dec 2009
From: Canada
Posts: 119

Alright, fair enough. However, I thought second amendment was in place because of potential British invasion. Canada tried to have a gun registry but it got abolished because most gun-related crimes up here come from unregistered guns smuggled from elsewhere.

I mean I'm kind of touchy with war. I find guns can really scare people and should be taken off the streets. Oftentimes a law with a good effect gets misused and privileges get abused. Guns are one of them, I find.
el canadiano is offline  
Old May 24th, 2010, 07:27 AM   #6
Vice President
 
David's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Opa Locka
Posts: 5,485

Quote:
Originally Posted by el canadiano View Post
Alright, fair enough. However, I thought second amendment was in place because of potential British invasion. Canada tried to have a gun registry but it got abolished because most gun-related crimes up here come from unregistered guns smuggled from elsewhere.

I mean I'm kind of touchy with war. I find guns can really scare people and should be taken off the streets. Oftentimes a law with a good effect gets misused and privileges get abused. Guns are one of them, I find.
Gun crime is actually pretty low among Americans. We then toward White Collar crimes and robing banks with an angry look and a candy bar under a coat.

Now if you're on the Mexican border you have spill over to worry about and you still need to keep an eye out for muggers. But guns? Most criminals don't bother due to the whole getting shot back at thing. Which of course is the point.
David is offline  
Old May 24th, 2010, 10:34 AM   #7
Analyst
 
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 57

I think we should follow the country's constitution to obey the country law and regulations but is this right that current government amend the constitution in their favor?
irahat is offline  
Old May 24th, 2010, 11:48 AM   #8
Anarchist
 
Dirk's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2009
From: Disunited Queendom
Posts: 1,944

Sometimes constitutions need amending. And the US constitution can be amended. It basically lays out the principles the country was founded on.

I think that was quite a neutral post, don't you agree?
Dirk is offline  
Old May 26th, 2010, 04:48 PM   #9
Vice President
 
David's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Opa Locka
Posts: 5,485

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirk View Post
Sometimes constitutions need amending. And the US constitution can be amended. It basically lays out the principles the country was founded on.

I think that was quite a neutral post, don't you agree?
Agreed. Sure they may need changing but if you're going to ignore it, what's the point of a law of the land constitution if it's toothless and symbolic?
David is offline  
Old May 27th, 2010, 12:59 PM   #10
Intern
 
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 15

I'm an alien here...so I have the "you must follow the laws here, but they don't protect you" deal.

But I wouldnt say that you had to follow it to the letter, where you would interpret it as you MUST have a gun, and you MUST have a religion, etc. It's free choice on whether you want those things or not .
Arlie is offline  
Old July 4th, 2010, 01:32 AM   #11
Intern
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 17

I'm not really sure how having a right to possess a gun will really help against the government. There are so many ways in which the government can hurt the people and the gun can never be the answer to them all.

So long as the government of any country has a moral and legal force, and the means to carry out its will through sanctions and by fear of punishment, the people will remain pretty helpless in the face of it, armed or not.

I believe that a truly courageous man can start a revolution with his words, his bare hands and fists. A coward will never start a war even when armed to the teeth.

Moral force is what wins in the end, even if its immediate effects seem very weak. The constitution of any country is nothing but this moral voice. Whether it reflects the moral voice of the people or merely serves as a government propaganda piece depends on the nature of that country.
thebossman is offline  
Old July 4th, 2010, 10:04 PM   #12
Vice President
 
David's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Opa Locka
Posts: 5,485

Quote:
Originally Posted by thebossman View Post
I'm not really sure how having a right to possess a gun will really help against the government. There are so many ways in which the government can hurt the people and the gun can never be the answer to them all.

So long as the government of any country has a moral and legal force, and the means to carry out its will through sanctions and by fear of punishment, the people will remain pretty helpless in the face of it, armed or not.

I believe that a truly courageous man can start a revolution with his words, his bare hands and fists. A coward will never start a war even when armed to the teeth.

Moral force is what wins in the end, even if its immediate effects seem very weak. The constitution of any country is nothing but this moral voice. Whether it reflects the moral voice of the people or merely serves as a government propaganda piece depends on the nature of that country.
Velvet Revolutions only work when the authority targeted isn't willing to simply kill the lot of them. The British weren't, India became independent. Germany was, the Jews, minorities and Leftists were wiped out and only WW2 ended that gov't.

So you can be right but not always (so much for truth being black and white ).

As for your 1st point, while it's true that an armed citizen is no match for the gov't, the idea was for all citizens to be armed (300 million + 2 million = gov't loses).
David is offline  
Old July 4th, 2010, 10:55 PM   #13
Intern
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by David View Post
Velvet Revolutions only work when the authority targeted isn't willing to simply kill the lot of them. The British weren't, India became independent. Germany was, the Jews, minorities and Leftists were wiped out and only WW2 ended that gov't.

So you can be right but not always (so much for truth being black and white ).

As for your 1st point, while it's true that an armed citizen is no match for the gov't, the idea was for all citizens to be armed (300 million + 2 million = gov't loses).
Yes, but who organizes individuals at such a level that they are willing to collectively raise their arms against the government. Nothing but a concerted effort will win out in the end and I think that's where the problem lies.

Individuals being armed and empowered sounds like a noble concept in theory. It takes a lot for true empowerment to displace an entrenched and highly organized government structure.
thebossman is offline  
Old July 4th, 2010, 11:47 PM   #14
Vice President
 
David's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Opa Locka
Posts: 5,485

Quote:
Originally Posted by thebossman View Post
Yes, but who organizes individuals at such a level that they are willing to collectively raise their arms against the government. Nothing but a concerted effort will win out in the end and I think that's where the problem lies.

Individuals being armed and empowered sounds like a noble concept in theory. It takes a lot for true empowerment to displace an entrenched and highly organized government structure.
Care to elaborate? If you're saying what I think you're saying, what does it have to do with my point?
David is offline  
Old July 6th, 2010, 05:51 PM   #15
Representative
 
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 138

If you don't like your constitution either move or don't follow it. Just because there are laws doesn't mean you have to do something. It just means if you go against it there could be consequences for your actions. We're all free to do our own thing. We just have to pay attention to what may happen as a result of our actions
jdsingle is offline  
Old August 4th, 2010, 12:33 AM   #16
Senator
 
obtuseobserver's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 862

Quote:
Originally Posted by el canadiano View Post
Do you have to follow your country's bill of rights or their constitution fully?

I mean I'm all for constitutions. They put strong laws for the better of the people. The reason I'm asking this is because I was reading the second amendment of the US Bill of Rights - the one which gives people the right to possess firearms. I mean it was fine in practicality, but isn't stuff like that out of date?
Presuming it is out of date.

We have a procedure for establishing what the law means. In this case the case law is not as well developed as it is with other rights secured by the Bill of Rights.

So, it must be interpretted to mean what the founders thought it meant.

If that concept is out of date we have a process to change the constitution. An amendment serves that function.

Why do you think the second amendment is out of date?

Criminals by definition disobey the law. Gun prohibition will have zero impact on criminals. That being true we'll disarm law abiding citizens. With a few hundren million guns in American hands eliminating them is not a realistic possibility. That being true the more law abiding citizens who are armed, the better. The more criminals they shoot the more criminals will be reluctant to commit crimes.
obtuseobserver is offline  
Old August 4th, 2010, 12:37 AM   #17
Senator
 
obtuseobserver's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 862

Quote:
Originally Posted by el canadiano View Post
Alright, fair enough. However, I thought second amendment was in place because of potential British invasion. Canada tried to have a gun registry but it got abolished because most gun-related crimes up here come from unregistered guns smuggled from elsewhere.

I mean I'm kind of touchy with war. I find guns can really scare people and should be taken off the streets. Oftentimes a law with a good effect gets misused and privileges get abused. Guns are one of them, I find.
No.

It was in place because of several factors.

Check the British Constitution of 1689... iirc there are only two acknowledged rights... 1) redress of greivences 2) right to bear arms (excepting catholics... with a carve out that they may keep weapons for self defense - that coming from a Kings Bench case in the late 1600s iirc)

The fact that the Brits were sent to seize weapons stores in 1775 was a large factor as well.

You can find early statutes declaring who the "well regulated militia" actually are... all able bodied men between ages X and Y...
obtuseobserver is offline  
Old August 13th, 2010, 10:52 AM   #18
Vice President
 
David's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Opa Locka
Posts: 5,485

Quote:
Originally Posted by obtuseobserver View Post
No.

It was in place because of several factors.

Check the British Constitution of 1689... iirc there are only two acknowledged rights... 1) redress of greivences 2) right to bear arms (excepting catholics... with a carve out that they may keep weapons for self defense - that coming from a Kings Bench case in the late 1600s iirc)

The fact that the Brits were sent to seize weapons stores in 1775 was a large factor as well.

You can find early statutes declaring who the "well regulated militia" actually are... all able bodied men between ages X and Y...
17 and 47 I believe. Most of the US population is subject to military duty, regardless of a draft, and don't even know it.

Unorganized Militia, got to love it.
David is offline  
Old November 11th, 2012, 11:23 AM   #19
Representative
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Turkey
Posts: 134

Arguable. Constitution should be relatively short and simple. It can be easily manipulated by governments in the other case.
reader is offline  
Old November 12th, 2012, 07:28 AM   #20
Representative
 
Iolo's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2011
From: Rhondda, Cymru
Posts: 464

An article in today's Guardian points out that the Constitution is a slightly imporoved version of the unwritten UK article in the Eighteenth Century, and too archaic to be any use to anyone.
Iolo is offline  
Reply

  Political Fray > The Political Fray > History

Tags
constitution , follow , fully



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How closely do you follow your religion? omej Religion 15 October 17th, 2016 02:21 AM
Your Constitution David Philosophy 4 November 15th, 2012 11:44 AM
So ends the Constitution. David Government and Politics 23 October 11th, 2010 07:06 AM
Would you still follow the same religion if you were not born in it? Firz Religion 25 March 29th, 2009 04:47 PM
How Many of You Follow ? darklord Religion 16 March 15th, 2009 04:37 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2009-2013 Political Fray. All rights reserved.