It looks like both sides agree that the Constitution needs to be revised/amended to deal with the situations as they are today

Politics
1

I don’t want to debate the intent of what the framers of the 2nd and 14th Amendments intended as there is always going to be some degree of subjectivity of what was intended and more specifically what that intent should mean today. The fact is that how these two aspects of our constitution are playing out in a practical manner are causing problems for OUR country TODAY.

The sad part (as far as I’m concerned) is that both the 2nd and 14th Amendments should be revised/amended to best address what is going on in our society and country today. Unfortunately we have such a partisan climate resulting from our pathetic two parties that results in such a dysfunctional government.

2

I was told there would be a 100% chance of armed insurrection if we even attempt to amend the 2nd, so that’s a no go zone.

3

Most gun-huggers I’ve met have some serious issues with paranoia.

Somehow they think they’re tough because they carry a weapon. Meanwhile, the REAL men don’t feel a constant need to be armed.

4

If it were up to the Dem Dems, you’d just get rid of all of those dangerous guns right?

No law also. Does Anarchy sound good to you? Cause people could still get them illegally.
We all know how illegal things in America are easy to come by now a days(illegals).

5

yep. If I could, I would just go, “Abracadabra, Alakazam!” poof, all guns gone.

3 Likes
6

I thought so.

7

I know (assume) that you are using sarcasm but the fact is that even if that were a genuine concern the revised/amended wording could deal with any reasonable concerns that would arise.

8

No I’m not using sarcasm. That’s what was said to me by several red hat posters here when I made a thread about it.

9

deuce seven off suit. Here comes the flop.

10

i stand corrected.

11

Would you agree that it would be prudent for the Congress to address wording such as arms and militia to better fit our modern day situation?

12

You’ll meet with much sarcasm from both sides on this. But I know where you’re coming from. The Constitution is an incredible framework document. You have to respect it for that. But the nature of our society and our planet is far different than it was 231 years ago. I do think it’s logical to say that some topics in the Constitution need to be revisited in light of societal changes. However, the simple fact is that there is a built-in method to revisiting. It’s only a matter of getting both sides to agree to sit down and discuss. If we could just get the dialogue to be open, honest, and civil you never know what we could agree upon.

1 Like
13

Humble, respectful and reasonable people would be able to do so. Doesn’t look like we have much of that in our government today.

14

I have found that gun ownership is cultural and geographical. For example I was talking to a friend of mine who is a butcher and he was telling me how many more deer he used to butcher for hunters years ago compared to today. So in a state like NJ the younger generation is not as into hunting as the older generation. Also gun ownership varies from state to state.

15

Surprisingly I have not. Like you I thought I would get a lot of flak from both sides on this as well. Maybe we can get moderates from both sides to convene a Constitutional Convention (I believe that is the term) so our lawmakers can actually do what is right for the country.

17

Someone’s triggered. :rofl:

18

The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

Has the almighty government made it harder to hunt?

19
  1. There are no “moderates”
  2. :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
20

I agree. “Gunhuggers” was a pretty obvious clue.

21

It’s getting emotional in here. I think we’re on the verge of a mob. Everybody hide.