Politicians continuously undemining the constitution..

DeepThinker

When politicians state that "the second amendment was written so long ago that we shouldnt be allowed to have specific firearms." It HEAVILY undermines the constitution, and the statement "shall not be infringed".
With that being said, how can our government even think about letting someone who is a potential tyrant run for president?? The constitution was written for that exact purpose over 200 years ago...
Is that to say people today are so blinded by media and their uninformed opinions, that they dont undertand what infringing on the base set of natural rights we have in America will do to our country? If our government breaks our own ground rules that our country was founded upon, what WONT they do?
If they can successfully infringe on the second amendment, how about they do it to every other amendment as well.
What if they changed the first amendment because they felt muslims were a big enough threat that they now wanted to make a law agains them practicing religeon in America?
What if they wanted to change the 3rd amendment because war came to our soil, and they want to convert your family home into a military station with armed soldiers sleeping in your bed?
What if they wanted to change the 5th, 6th and 7th amendment because theres been too many crimes that are going unsolved? Then they can throw anyone in prison without due process, just in case you are guilty, before you even go to court. As well as have a biased jury and unfair trial.
This is what the constitution protects you from in America. So many ingnorant people believe you can just rip it up, or infringe on it, and everything will be fine.

So the big question, how can our government allow potential tyrants to run for president?!
That is the biggest threat to our national security, other than the government allowing every American business to outsource 90% of our labor to a country who cant even control their own pandemic-worthy diseases..

View Answer

Pfhorrest

So the big question, how can our government allow potential tyrants to run for president?! — DeepThinker

Who exactly do you have in mind?

DeepThinker

Any one politician who has said that the constitution is outdated, or that the already existing base amendments need changed, or removed.

MyOwnWay

↪DeepThinker

I'd like to start by quoting Heinlein. "Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst."

Supposing this to be true we ask the question of the monopoly of force. Who gets the ultimate right to exercise force. Most nations have answered that the state should have a monopoly on force. Why do they do this? They presuppose that peace and order are above liberty in a hierarchy of human needs. The 2nd amendment is unique in that it answers the question of monopoly by giving it to the citizens. This presupposes that liberty stands higher than peace and order in a hierarchy of needs. What this essentially means is that you can be happy even if you haven't known peace, and that the pursuit of happiness isn't tied to peace.

The first question is one you should ask yourself. Do you value peace and order most, or do you choose liberty even if it has a dangerous cost? Now to your question. In so many words how can the state choose peace and order over liberty, right? The state is an institution of man, man is selfish, these values allocate more power to the state. It's really just that simple.

You want my opinion? I think liberty is better. So there's my answers for you, I hope they are of value.

MyOwnWay

↪Pfhorrest

I fundamentally don't agree with this question. If you see my above post you can see my opinion is that the 2nd amendment is an answer to the question of the monopoly of force. He asked how, not who. So asking "who" seams a really partisan question to begin with. Partisanship can't answer this question, only questions you may have about the OP's own partisan ideals. If you just start from the how it's quite clear that all institutions of man are subject to the failings of man. This neither supposes the amendment is right or that can render the best possible results, it just answers how the system could do that.

DeepThinker

Violence solves more issues only because most individuals value their life over beliefs. If someone comes to your home, puts a gun to your head and says "leave", youre going to do it, unless you have a viable way to defend against it. Hence violence solving the weilders issues of you being in his new house. Pretty much exactly as we did to the indians, the difference being that the natives provoked it.
All in all, Im not sure you understood my question completely in text. When you speak of liberty, I assume youre talking about freedom from an opressive government, which is covered in a few other amendments. My question was: If politicians that are SWORN to uphold the constitution, and protect it at all costs, are talking about infringing it in their campaigns.. Why arent they booted right out of the election?

There will always be criminals as long as there is poverty. Laws will not change their minds. Seeing as how everything criminals do is already illegal, what will taking the right of innocent individuals do? Ensure that noone in America can defend themselves against a future criminal armed with an "illegal" firearm? Plus the fact that theyll go to prison for life for having a "devils firearm" anyhow, will give them all the more reason to pull the trigger.

But I didnt post to discuss whether or not criminals will follow laws.. Just want to know how the government doesnt see it as a threat to national security, or how it is even possible that someone who pretty much says "I plan to commit tyranny" can be considered to run the country...? One of them gets voted in, next thing you know, we will have no firearms, then they will want to repeal amendments that mean more to the entire population, such as the right to liberty, and we will not be able to defend against it.

MyOwnWay

↪DeepThinker

Poverty is not the determining factor in criminality, it's the disregard for the law. That's why there are anti 2nd politicians. As to how the government could let that happen I answered your question in 2 ways. One is that all institutions of man have the same flaws as man. Two is that the second amendment answers it's not the governments responsibility but that of the citizenry. If you want the how from that point I'd say a lack of understanding of what the ideals of our system are.

IvoryBlackBishop

↪DeepThinker

I don't care what "politicians" or idiotic rhetoricians say, most of whom don't even know or care what the Constitutional interpretation process actually is, or defer to nonsensical and irrelevant historical romanticism or stupid interpretations in theory or in practice.

MyOwnWay

↪IvoryBlackBishop

I think if you truly believe the 2nd amendments answer to the monopoly of force what you said is the correct answer.

creativesoul

...well regulated militia...

Those words are more often left out of those who argue for the right to keep and bear arms.

MyOwnWay

↪creativesoul

My response to this is that I have a cure for partisanship. We simply take a left wing politician and a right wing politician, remove their brains, bisect them, swap and sew together each half of brain reinserting them into the bodies. With any luck this will create a well reasoned political thinker.

Pfhorrest

↪MyOwnWay

He implied that the US is letting potential tyrants run for president. I’m wondering which person(s) he thinks are potential tyrants running for president: someone(s) from one party this year, everyone from every party for generations, somewhere in between...?

Streetlight

The American constitution should be torn up and burned in whichever trash heap is nearest at hand.

DeepThinker

↪creativesoul

I think people who do not own firearms fail to realize how well regulated firearms already are. You are tied to that firearm the second you buy it. If you sell it privately, you better have the persons ID and CCW photocopied and put away. If they were to commit a crime, the police will be at YOUR doorstep. The only reason to "register" any further than is already required, especially with a police station, would be to compile a single list of targets for gun confiscation.. Which lord knows would kill potentially millions of innocent people standing up for their right to equally protect their families. For what? To TRY to stop a couple crazy people per year from killing a few people people? Thats completely asinine. 2019 was the worst year for mass shootings in history, and 15,000 people died. Thats 5 TIMES less than the lowest amount of opioid deaths we've had in one year. Thats even FAR LESS than the number who die from voluntarily breathing in smoke annually...
Plus, I know I dont want my name on a list telling a militia ran by tyrants where my family lives, so they can bust in threatening our lives with guns if we dont give ours up.. Would you sit back and watch with a peaceful mind as the unconstitutional law that you fought for kills your neighbors, and many other families alike in every state across the country? What will that do to the millions of children that will flood foster homes? Will they put a bullet in the kids too? Who knows. Will you trust a government that proved 100% that they will murder a mass amount of tax paying citizens at a moments notice if you dont bend over? All because of a few crazy people.

DeepThinker

↪Pfhorrest

The who is redundant in this post. Judging by your curiosity, I'm guessing you most likely already know a few examples.

creativesoul

...a few crazy people... — DeepThinker

Something like that...

DeepThinker

↪MyOwnWay

I feel that its the motive in a large percent of violent crimes, coming in behind bad domestic relationships and drugs. Which sometimes also boils down to lack of money to feed starving babies, or drug habits. Turns some women into prostitutes and some men into criminals. Vice versa as well of course.
I think youre very right about the citizenry. Hasnt it always been the governments job to step in, in situations where the population has no idea whats good for the security/well-being of our country though? For example, the same reasons you cant sell cigarettes to minors, or other certain substances at all?
Also, thank you for all the great input on the topic.

IvoryBlackBishop

↪StreetlightX

Why?

IvoryBlackBishop

Lately I'm not inclined to reply to things like this, because of all the falsehoods, false dichotomies, and so on which come up when people, mostly one's who've never read or cared about the basic structure of the government, judicial interpretation philosophies, and so on, use bad or simplistic rhetorical arguments on it, its origins, its interpretation.

"Originalism" is one of the ones I've seen most bastardized (sometimes a simple argument from authority fallacy regarding an oversimplified or idolatrous depiction of the "framers" or the "time period" they came from; such as the arguments that the Framers only owned "muskets" or 18th century firearms), much as most or many of the arguments don't even bother to distinguish between federal law, state laws, and so on. (The Constitution, for example contains no restriction or prescription on state laws, beyond the Amendments in the Constitution itself).

When even this isn't the actual philosophy of "originalism" to begin with, as per Justice Scalia and other authors on it (e.x. originalism acknowledges that practical updates which incorporate the technology of the times are a reality, and that much as the Constitution was designed to be amended and changed, this is naturally always a possibility; the main theme being that the Constitution should be formally amended or changed in regards to cultural values, not simply "ignored" or re-interpreted without any restrictions). That's my synopsis anyway.

Politicians continuously undemining the constitution..

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions