Do you really have to follow the constitution fully?

Dec 11, 2009
119
0
Canada
#1
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 I mean it was fine in practicality, but isn't stuff like that out of date?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?
 

myp

Site Founder
Jan 14, 2009
5,841
50
#2
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.
 
Dec 11, 2009
119
0
Canada
#3
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?
 

myp

Site Founder
Jan 14, 2009
5,841
50
#4
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.
 
Dec 11, 2009
119
0
Canada
#5
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.
 
Jul 26, 2009
5,666
406
Opa Locka
#6
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. :giggle:

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. :D
 
May 12, 2010
57
0
#7
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?
 

Dirk

Anarchist
Apr 27, 2009
1,943
5
Disunited Queendom
#8
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?
 
Jul 26, 2009
5,666
406
Opa Locka
#9
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?
 
May 22, 2010
15
0
#10
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 :).
 
Feb 28, 2010
17
0
#11
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.
 
Jul 26, 2009
5,666
406
Opa Locka
#12
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).
 
Feb 28, 2010
17
0
#13
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.
 
Jul 26, 2009
5,666
406
Opa Locka
#14
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?
 
May 24, 2010
138
0
#15
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
 
Aug 4, 2010
862
0
#16
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.
 
Aug 4, 2010
862
0
#17
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...
 
Jul 26, 2009
5,666
406
Opa Locka
#18
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. :giggle:

Unorganized Militia, got to love it.
 
Jun 15, 2012
134
0
Turkey
#19
Arguable. Constitution should be relatively short and simple. It can be easily manipulated by governments in the other case.
 
Mar 5, 2011
746
159
Rhondda, Cymru
#20
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.
 

Similar Discussions