Subject:
|
Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 24 Sep 2002 17:12:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1632 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > 1776!! Rip up that scrap of paper and give yourself a constitution which
> > > reflects the needs and aspirations of your countrywo/men today - not what
> > > may (or may not) have existed 200+ years ago. ;)
> >
> > Scott, that would be truly insane...
> >
> > ...trust the people that put Bush in the White House and have supported him
> > through all the other BS?! Would you trust Blair to rework how your civil
> > liberties work?
> >
> > Not on your life, man.
> >
> > -- Hop-Frog
>
> Absolutely true.
>
> Someone in this thread said a while back that *any* change to the
> foundational principles of US law would have to follow the *process* that is
> currently in place to get such a change made. He said that it is the
> *process* that is important, and I could not agree more.
>
> Ripping up the law and enacting a brand new one doesn't allow for gradual
> change and growth--it's starting right over from the beginning--a la revolution.
I was being a little brash, my point was that perhaps it should be updated to
reflect the nature of life today. I doubt TJ foresaw the nature of modern
weaponry.
>
> I defend and uphold the *process* that is in place to make changes to the
> laws of the land.
>
> Though Scott makes an interesting point, in that "give yourself a
> constitution which reflects the needs and aspirations of your countrywo/men
> today"
>
> The constitution, as written, is inherently sexist and quite out of
> date--You can find bibles that are more inclusive these days than these
> documents that the US has.
lol
Scott A
>
> How 'bout someone work out a way of updating the constitution (and other
> documents) to be inclusive, and which everyone could agree to.
>
> I personally read 'man' as 'humanity' but feminists do not--first hand
> experience with that faux pas.
>
> Dave K.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
220 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
