The 2-nd Amendment.

[Lambsbread]

What's up with letting documents older than dirt dictate policy-making? Can't we govern in the century we live in?

[Lambsbread]

What's up with letting documents older than dirt dictate policy-making? Can't we govern in the century we live in?

Slippery slope there.  The far left does, however, know what's best for everyone else, so we should just do everything they want.  Don't let a pesky Constitution spelling out our basic rights get in the way.

Or, you know, we could stop violating the Constitution by setting bail above $20. Because that just shows how appropriate it is to allow that document to dictate policy.

[Lambsbread]

So...you think there should or shouldn't be excessive bail? You can't simultaneously say they we should stop following the Constitution and then complain when you think it's being violated...

I was using an example as to why the document is outdated. It's fine and dandy to have things like free speech, freedom of press/assembly, etc but clearly the 2nd, 7th and the 10th amendment among others are so ambiguous as to what they actually mean that we've tasked our judiciary with interpreting what they mean. Shouldn't we have a document that we can just you know...ask the framers what they meant by something? Obviously Congress shouldn't be tasked with writing a new Constitution, they'd never finish it, but perhaps maybe a conference of world leaders could meet and create a new document, and if others countries choose to adopt the same one, then so be it. That way we could move away from "this country's level of freedom is clearly not on par with the rest of the world's, but there's nothing we could do about it" or at least have a standard for which perhaps just the first world should be operated. You know, for example, not seeing denial of health coverage to citizens based on pre-existing conditions like it was/is done in America.

Rambled a little on this one, so forgive me.

[Lambsbread]

How is it not ambiguous? It's just the "powers not delegated to the fed gov't" that could be anything that's not explicitly delegated. Or it could be certain things. Gay marriage, abortion, drugs, etc. were not issues in the 18th century. So maybe the founders wanted the federal government to regulate drugs, but we can't be sure. That's very ambiguous.

I don't want to amend it. If I were to amend it, it would be a skeleton. It's fine to have now, because as I said, there's not a legitimate alternative as it stands, but I oppose a governing document from 200+ years ago dictating public policy in the 21st century.

[Lambsbread]

The 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about bearing arms for individual self-defense. It says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed because collective security relies upon a well-regulated militia.

We have no more well-regulated militias, and gun-owners rarely give a damn about collective security. The 2nd Amendment is dead. We're just arguing about how it's spirit should be honored.

Wow, great post.