Why doesn't the US ditch the old amendments and make some more modern ones?

The KKK doesn't exist and hasn't been relevant for a century

>hasn't been relevant for a century
The KKK was a problem in the 60s tbhfam. They are broken up now and are just a meme

Hardly a blip when you're talking about the domestic unrest of the 60s, and international scene of assassinated presidents and activists. Honestly, using those as examples would be a better shitty argument to take away gun rights than the KKK boogeyman.

A lot of people who use the boogeyman argument also believe that these assassinations were sanctioned or committed by a "deep state" which operated above the law anyway. Assassinations may be a good argument for arms controls, but if you subscribe the conspiracy theories, at that point you are just arguing against your right to defend yourself from an insidious and hostile government. Same concern that right-wing people have.

>This post. This shit right here is the exact reason we have the bill of rights in the first place
It actually isn't. The Bill of Rights as envisioned by the Founding Fathers is primarily to protect state level government from national level government. It's not there to protect individual citizens; which is why none of the Bill of Rights protections protected you from a state or local government until the 20th century.

Then you're stupid
The 1st and 2nd amendments are completely unrelated. Speaking your mind and carrying a gun have nothing to do with each other. Both, however, are important to defend the rights and liberties of the American people. What freedom of speech provides is equality before the law. Removing the right of free speech inevitably leads to the loss of the natural right of conscience. Men will be persecuted for what is in their hearts. Not only that, but freedom of speech is a threat to tyrants alone, a free state will have no need to shut down wrongthink. Guns are even more important, since a heavily armed populace will be able to defend the nation against both foreign invaders, and more importantly, domestic tyrants.

The people don't vote on amendments, congress and the states do.

The constitution has become somewhat of a religious document to Americans now. It'd be as difficult and controversial as amending the bible

And people vote in US representatives and state representatives. Are you from a foreign country? We are a what's called a democracy here in America.

>a popular vote is the same a representative vote

Are you high? Have you read any of the other writings from the founding fathers on individual liberty?

The answers are yes, and no.

Literally no one said anything about a popular vote. Reading is hard?

>It takes like 5% of the population disagreeing to defeat any attempts to amend the Constitution

Yeah, that's like 17,000,000 fucking activists.

The entire Republic was founded on the premise of distrusting the State and its authority. An armed citizenry makes sense when imagining future Federal abuses of power. Freedom of speech is to promote the free market of ideas where the best ideology wins out over others because it simply makes sense. When you ban/taboo certain opinions you get what can be chalked up to a political Streisand effect. Also by defining what is "hate speech" you then also define what is "acceptable speech" and therefore acceptable speech becomes government-sanctioned. The slippery slope is very real

>freedom of speech make(s) the US look quite hostile
If you are annoyed by someone's offensive speech, should you:
a) Tell them why you disagree
b) Ignore them
c) Shoot them a dirty look
d) Make it a criminal offence to say things that offend you

>What is judicial review

>Are you high? Have you read any of the other writings from the founding fathers on individual liberty?
Yes, not only that, I've actually read the laws as applied.

If the first amendment was meant to apply to people against all forms of tyranny, why is it that they didn't have a problem with 12 of the 13 colonies having official, tax supported churches at the time of the signing of the Constitution? Isn't that a rather flagrant violation of the Establishment Clause?
undergod.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000069

>at the time of the signing of the Constitution
So, before ratification?

And continuing on after it. But you're ducking the question. Oh wise user; why is it okay for the State of Virginia or New York to force you to pay taxes to support an official church, but not the federal government. I thought the founders were all about individual liberty against all levels of government oppression. Why is the 1st amendment specific to acts of Congress, and not acts of state legislatures?

Because you have to remember the timeline. “Freedom” was really just an idea by enlightened scholars. Americans wanted to be the first to try it out. It was an experiment

idiot

All churches are still tax-supported in that they are exempt.

Which is not unique, many non-profit organizations are similarly tax exempt.

What's that? I'm not hearing an answer.

Which is a necessary product of the other half of the portion dealing with religion, the bar against prohibition of free exercise. If you could tax a religious organization, then suddenly, a government can turn it off any time they want by taxing it to the hilt.

>What's that? I'm not hearing an answer.
That's because you're deciding to read the Bill of Rights outside of its historical context.

What in God's name does that have to do with individual liberty?

>That's because you're deciding to read the Bill of Rights outside of its historical context.
I'm actually providing historical context. Clearly, if there were no objections to state level action that would constitute a gross violation of the first amendment right when the Founding Fathers were setting things up, they didn't intend it to apply to state level governments.

Because they only cared when individual liberty was being trampled by a bunch of guys in Washington, instead of a bunch of guys in Richmond, or Dover, or Columbia. The focus wasn't on protecting the individual, it was restricting the national government.

Ah, so the right to a speedy trial, personal firearm ownership, against unwarranted search and seizure, or assembly were for the benefit of the state.

Fuck you, I don't even want to try to hash this out. You seem well entrenched in your (wrong) position.

The first 6 rights are individual, the rest concern themselves with state vs federal. You’ve completely misinterpreted that lesson, yes the founding fathers were primarily concerned with state rights, being the representitives of the states first and foremost, but to suggest that rights that clearly deal with individuals such as trial procedure, freedom of expression, right or bear arms, obviously it implies that every individual needs a primary weapon in order to form that militia in the first place, all of the rights that deal primarily on a state vs federal reasoning still necessitate individual rights in order to ensure the political climate they desired. You are deliberately misinterpreting this in order to make a point that the founding fathers would have never made. Do you seriously think they would have argued what you’re arguing in regards to things like the first 6 amendments? They all have an individual and collective component to them by necessity.

>Ah, so the right to a speedy trial, personal firearm ownership, against unwarranted search and seizure, or assembly were for the benefit of the state.
Again, if they were so much for the benefit of the individual, why didn't protection against state level infringement of any of those not come about until the incorporation doctrine in the 20th century? Why do you have cases like Cruikshank, very clearly spelling out that the Bill of Rights are restrictions on federal power, not rights of people?

Yes, those rights were secured to create sovereignty of state level government vis a vis national level government.

They protect individuals, but they are not as originally stated individual rights. Seriously, this was made official law of the United States.

supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/92/542/case.html

>The right of the people peaceably to assemble for lawful purposes, with the obligation on the part of the States to afford it protection, existed long before the adoption of the Constitution. The First Amendment to the Constitution, prohibiting Congress from abridging the right to assemble and petition, was not intended to limit the action of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National Government alone. It left the authority of the States unimpaired, added nothing to the already existing powers of the United States, and guaranteed the continuance of the right only against Congressional interference. The people, for their protection in the enjoyment of it, must therefore look to the States, where the power for that purpose was originally placed.

>The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.

>Sovereignty, for the protection of the rights of life and personal liberty within the respective States, rests alone with the States.

You know what else is a fundamental right? Right to engage in commerce, or make money. It's not even in the Bill of Rights because such a right was conceived to be so fundamental that it was felt to be pointless to spell it out. I hope you can see where I'm going with this, but since you probably can't, I will spell it out. Government taxing an activity does not mean that government prohibits free exercise. You may believe that is true, but US Constitutional law was never based on such an asinine idea.

If this were true then why does the 9th amendment exist? How could you possibly think a single case of one particular right being supervised by state authority means that the entire bill of rights is subject to the whims of the state? I’d like to see you find that case about successfully disarming the population because “lol we meant state militias”? Where’s the case about successfully restricting a person’s right to a trial on the basis that their particular state wasn’t bound by their god-given rights? The rights are an extension of the 3 natural rights of Locke, they were added to ensure protections for the people and the states, which is why the states are specifically referenced in 9 and why it isn’t called the Bill of Federal Rights.

You’re using a fallacious argument of a corrupt court that has been rightfully corrected by later courts. This very same argument you are using was found to be fallacious by the very same Supreme Court, and it wasn’t because it suddenly because unreasonable but because it was ALWAYS unreasonable and only then had they actually interpreted it correctly. The Supreme Court doesn’t decide what the constitution means, it interprets what it was intended to mean, and they change it in order to fix the context of the times while keeping the intentions sound. There are plenty of instances of the courts being completely corrupt and this is why the later courts had to cleanse their corruption and return to the actual intentions of the rights. Your willful ignorance here in the pursuit of making a point is a dangerous backwards way of thinking.

>Government taxing an activity does not mean that government prohibits free exercise. You may believe that is true, but US Constitutional law was never based on such an asinine idea.

Someone really should have told Justice Burger before he wrote the Walz vs Tax Commission ruling. law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/397/664

>Governments have not always been tolerant of religious activity, and hostility toward religion has taken many shapes and forms economic, political, and sometimes harshly oppressive. Grants of exemption historically reflect the concern of authors of constitutions and statutes as to the latent dangers inherent in the imposition of property taxes; exemption constitutes a reasonable and balanced attempt to guard against those dangers.

supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/32/243/case.html

>This provision, then, of the ninth section, however comprehensive its language, contains no restriction on State legislation.

> How could you possibly think a single case of one particular right being supervised by state authority means that the entire bill of rights is subject to the whims of the state?
I already cited to a case in this thread where the Supreme Court flat out states that the 1st, 2nd, and 5th amendments don't apply to the States either. In fact, there's 0 historical evidence of anyone attempting to apply any of the freedoms of the bill of rights against state level governance until 1925.

>I’d like to see you find that case about successfully disarming the population because “lol we meant state militias”?
That has absolutely nothing to do with my entire line of argument. Do you understand what I've been saying all thread? And yes, Cruikshank says that. Explicitly. The feds cannot disarm people (Milita status has nothing to do with it), but the states can do whatever the fuck they want, subject only to their own local constitutions.

>You’re using a fallacious argument of a corrupt court that has been rightfully corrected by later courts.
I'm using it as an example of pre- incorporation doctrine jurisprudence. I do not deny it's been overturned later. But it was overturned LATER. For most of the legal history of the U.S., the Bill of Rights protections did not exist vis a vis a state government infringing them.

>. The Supreme Court doesn’t decide what the constitution means
It quite literally does.

>it interprets what it was intended to mean, and they change it in order to fix the context of the times while keeping the intentions sound.
Then why do we have Everson v Board of Education? If we're trying to keep the intentions of the Founding Fathers intact, we're doing a very bad job of it.

>It quite literally does.
t. Jew

It was overturned later because the reasoning they were using was fallacious. You’ll note these cases happened after the founding fathers were already dead, they were interpreting and they interpreted wrong, which is why the later court had grounds to overrule them, because the later court proved by nature of their overruling that the previous court’s reasoning was not sound. The fact that there was even a court case needing to make the argument that the bill of rights didn’t apply to the states means that until that case it was never expressely intended to be that way until the court interpreted it that way, otherwise why make the claim in their reasoning? I make the distinction between “deciding what it means” and “interpreting what it was intended to mean” because the court you quoted is an example of the former and not the latter, meaning they bent the law with a loophole to deny rights to people and it wouldn’t be the first time they did it. The courts corrected this misinterpretation, and all court arguments are predicated on arguing original intent, so if the modern reasoning isnt sound and there is grounds to change it now as the political parties want, why wouldn’t the courts do so? Because they can’t, because there’s no way to argue something that is inherently wrong, no way to get around that the court was proven to have misinterpretated the constitution. You’re arguing in circles, it doesn’t matter what some corrupt 19th century Supreme Court said, most of their cases have been overruled by new ones and it’s not on the whims of political fancy but with real arguments that prove that the previous ruling was ALWAYS fallacious.

Guns and free speech are good and all until KGB fucks shit up with ideological subversion. Look at the amount of faggot commies with guns now in America alone, all dressed in black and red spouting marxist bullshit like racial and gender equality.

SHALL

>Look at the amount of faggot commies with guns now in America alone
There's barely any compared to the amount of Constitutionalist militias in the USA

I mean being from germany I can tell you that we have a much more thorough rights catalog than the united states, I would also state that the american electoral system was decent at the time but its quite outdated now and is lacking behind other countries in building a functioning demecratic process (2 party beeing maybe the most agregious one)

>I can tell you that we have a much more thorough rights catalog than the united states
You have neither free speech nor the right to bear arms, I wouldn't exactly call it "thorough", more like "lacking in two of the most important and basic human rights".

>the American electoral system was decent at the time but its quite outdated now and is lacking behind other countries in building a functioning demecratic process (2 party beeing maybe the most agregious one)
While the two party system does suck the electoral system is functioning just fine.

>You have neither free speech
wrong

you have a stasi agent monitoring your internet to arrest you for wrong think user...

wrong

>bans "hate speech"
>claims to have free speech
No.

>has slander laws
>claims to have free speech

In the USA your speech has to physically hurt someone for it to be illegal, it can't just hurt your feelings.

anetta kahane

NOT

We should though. For our future.

I think what he meant was that swinging 5% of the vote in many elections is enough to determine the outcome.

Therefore pissing off that many voters is something many elected officials view with some trepidation.

Fuck off fagit I like my right gtfo

>>What is judicial review

Something that would be irrelevant to amending the Constitution.

>I mean being from germany I can tell you that we have a much more thorough rights catalog than the united states

Every German I've ever met has the most self-righteously slavish attitude regarding government authority. Is it genetic?

The First Amendment is tops. Don't care too much for the second. We need to have more Black Panthers, Antifa and Muslims marching around legally with guns before poor white trash will change their tune on the second.

Can't enforce your right to the 1st without the 2nd you bootlicking numale.

Radical idea, we actually have a gov’t which follows the 4th Amendment and doesn’t operate a huge surveillance state over its civilians.

Literally impossible to not be spied on in some way in today's world if you don't go out of your way to live in some off-grid hippie commune.

Where are you from, and what don't you understand about our constitution?

*votes*

1776 as fuck my dude

His point being that your right to speech can be taken from you without a failsafe on tyranny. Personally I wish we'd just de-federalize the National Guard.

*brands you a felon for not having the right opinion*

*pushes through whatever tyrannical BS you can think up in a closed midnight session*

>racial and gender equal opportunity is marxist

You clearly don't understand what the fuck you are talking about. Go back to /pol/ faggot.

>the premise of distrusting the State and its authority.
not at all. it was founded on the premise of uniting the disparate colonies into a federation that could stand united against the outside world. This is demonstrated by washington's first terms in office.

Since the Bill of Rights, we've amended it 17 times and had 6 amendments put to the states that were not ratified.

The two most recent failed attempts had a deadline for ratification included in the language of the amendment that expired without enough states agreeing, the first four could technically still be ratified but they are no longer being pursued.

>small arms are a failsafe against the United States military

Bill of Rights was historically irrelevant until the early 20th century, incidentally. It was added as an afterthought.

>We need more sub-humans with guns to oppose others that disagree with me

So you admit people need guns to keep a sense of safety?

Oh no that would make too much sense, you mean put guns in the hands of sub-human scum to get rid of people who you disagree with, good luck taking guns away from well trained veterans you communist faggot.

Which is precisely why the ATF's decision to regulate so-called "destructive devices" and explosives is unconstitutional. The bulk of shipborne artillery in the AWI was privately owned and operated.

>4th ammendment is breached
>its impossible to enforce so it's irrelevant!
lol

>So you admit people need guns to keep a sense of safety?

No. I admit that guns in certain hands scare the shit out of people.

>IEDs are a failsafe against the United States military

Well, actually you may be right about that seeing how our troops were BTFO by camel jockeys with ghetto rigged grenades.

>second amendment is meant to defend against tyrannical government with unaccountable standing army
>veteran of said standing army now thinks he's a defender of the second amendment
the founding fathers would have put you to a wall and shot you

Someone's never heard of the IRA

>"why don't you just, like, end freedom of speech lol"

are you actually retarded?

Are you comparing the US military with the Irish military? Fucking kek.

I'm comparing the US military to the British military

The British didn't (and still don't) give a shit about Northern Ireland. Our troops were there to keep the peace, not conquer the paddies.

And? The police in the USA are pro-2nd Amendment, they don't even want to take the guns, the military (with the exception of the National Guard) can't be deployed on US soil, and the National Guard certainly doesn't give a shit about some citizen and his guns.

Yeah wtf. Just because we almost all can be monitored and have data collected on doesn’t mean it SHOULD be done. Gov’t shouldn’t just be doing it because they can and we should be even more aware of our 4th amendment rights today than ever before.

Also we gotta stop using drone strikes n shit to extrajudicially kill citizens w/o due process

...

>the military (with the exception of the National Guard) can't be deployed on US soil

Well... they are physically capable of being deployed here. A tyrannical government bent on crushing the people would probably not care if they were technically not supposed to do things.

slander only applies to written speech to protect someone's reputation from false rumors.

>the military (with the exception of the National Guard) can't be deployed on US soil

The Insurrection Act was specifically written to lay out when the military can be deployed on US soil.

The TL;DR is any time the National Guard can't handle it.

niggers already have tons of guns. Who the fuck do you think is killing them in Detroit and Chicago not wyipipo.

>"freedom of speech" make the US look quite hostile
Are you retarded