220
submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net to c/liberalgunowners@lemmy.world

Running out of reality to blame, they got to make stories.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] goferking0 1 points 3 months ago

They also wanted the document to continuously be updated.

Turns out shit changes between flintlock guns to what we have now

[-] Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

They did indeed leave a mechanism to update the constitution. You are free to propose an amendment and if the majority of the country agrees, it can supersede an existing amendment.

The only thing that has changed are unconstitutional laws infringing upon our rights.

[-] goferking0 1 points 3 months ago

Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before. It has then, like them, a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness; consequently, to accommodate to the circumstances in which it finds itself, that received from its predecessors; and it is for the peace and good of mankind, that a solemn opportunity of doing this every nineteen or twenty years, should be provided by the constitution; so that it may be handed on, with periodical repairs, from generation to generation, to the end of time, if anything human can so long endure.

https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/jefferson-memorial-education-each-new-generation.htm

[-] Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

Nice quote, I’m glad you agree with me that change is good and that there is a mechanism to change the constitution. It is of course called an amendment.

👍

[-] goferking0 -1 points 3 months ago

No it means replacement not amending. Amending is just addition not updating.

[-] JustZ@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

They also attempted to draft a version of the Second Amendment that contained the rights you think it contains, and it was unanimously a rejected at the constitutional convention in Philadelphia. Perhaps you could look to the constitutions of the original colonies to see if any of them thought that an individual right to bear arms was so essential, but you will find that not a single one of them had an individual right.

You will not also not find a single original work in the English language in which the phrase bear arms is used in any context outside of a military one, until dumbasses started perverting that phrase fifty odd years after the Constitution was written.

this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2024
220 points (77.1% liked)

Liberal Gun Owners

521 readers
2 users here now

A community for pro-gun liberals.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS