Deadly shooting at US university

why cant the old constitution be scrapped? and a new one be written up that actualy applys to todays culture, inventions and society.

i find it a little strange that we apply old laws to new society.

just my opinion im not american so maybe my opinion dosent count, but still i find it a little wierd.


peace.
 
EmptyForceOfChi said:
why cant the old constitution be scrapped? and a new one be written up that actualy applys to todays culture, inventions and society.

i find it a little strange that we apply old laws to new society.

just my opinion im not american so maybe my opinion dosent count, but still i find it a little wierd.


peace.
Click to expand...

respect of laws written is proportional with time of release.
 
but clearly the constitution is a little out dated otherwise people would not be missunderstanding its content.

why cant it just be scrapped altogether? i dont see it helping anybody, sometimes nations need to let go of silly old traditions to enable them to move forward.

but your country is run by a complete brainless asshole so maybe i am wrong and it should stay. theres not much hope for your nation while your led by someone like him anyway. seriously i am shocked that a world power can be led by such a dick.

peace.
 
I worship noone. I bow before none. My parents are my kind. My country is that which I am part of, as a living cell of an organism I will contribute to the existence. My goal of life is to reach my dream and never to give up, to excell above others, to leave a positive mark in history. My soul existence is to change my innerself by the many actions I take in my life, so that in next life I will excell once more.
 
EmptyForceOfChi

but clearly the constitution is a little out dated otherwise people would not be missunderstanding its content.

why cant it just be scrapped altogether? i dont see it helping anybody, sometimes nations need to let go of silly old traditions to enable them to move forward.

but your country is run by a complete brainless asshole so maybe i am wrong and it should stay. theres not much hope for your nation while your led by someone like him anyway. seriously i am shocked that a world power can be led by such a dick.
Click to expand...

That is the problem, we don't use the Constitution as it was written, we have watered down the rights enumerated in the Constitution and moved away from the intent of the writers of the Constitution. Now How do you scrap the founding laws of a country with out destroying that country? how often are you going to change those documents? every time some thing happens that is a tragedy? if you change your founding documents every time some thing happens how do you govern? and what are you going to do when the constitution is changed to oppress you, because some one decides that your rights are not in the best interest of the country? and who decides what those interest are? and are you going to run a country by the actions of a disturbed mind? that is what you are calling for, to adjust the actions of everyone to accommodate for the actions of the irrational? do you really want your life restricted to the level needed to control every situation that involves accounting for the actions of the insane? What kind of life do you think you would have, the land of V for Vendetta? 1984? the Nazi Republic of Germany times 100? and in the end check out the laws of any country, the police aren't required to protect you!, the government isn't required to protect you!, try going to court and suing them for failure to protect you and see how far you get, in the end you are responsible for your own safety, and it doesn't matter what country you live in murders and mass mayhem occur, and nothing the Police and Government do can stop it from happening, and by their own laws they don't have to!!
 
im not saying change the constitution just because of the school shooting.....

does the constitution say wich type of arms you are allowed to bear? because from what i can tell it does not it just says to "bear arms" nowdays "arms" is alot different to when the constitution was created correct?

so if you interpret the constitution in todays society it means you are allowed to bear rocket launchers, flame throwers, grenade launchers, assault rifles, high powered machine guns, hand held automatic pistols, sub machine guns, uzis, 12 gauge shotguns, etc etc

i dont think that when the constitution was written that they intended it to be used in its entire form hundreds of years later when tech has evolved and arms have gotten a tad more extream,

ofcourse you have to change laws in due course to coincide witht he change in society. otherwise we would all still be living by laws made thousands of years ago, wich we are not,

buffalo you have a stange mind.

peace.
 
EmptyForceOfChi said:
im not saying change the constitution just because of the school shooting.....

does the constitution say wich type of arms you are allowed to bear? because from what i can tell it does not it just says to "bear arms" nowdays "arms" is alot different to when the constitution was created correct?

so if you interpret the constitution in todays society it means you are allowed to bear rocket launchers, flame throwers, grenade launchers, assault rifles, high powered machine guns, hand held automatic pistols, sub machine guns, uzis, 12 gauge shotguns, etc etc

i dont think that when the constitution was written that they intended it to be used in its entire form hundreds of years later when tech has evolved and arms have gotten a tad more extream,

ofcourse you have to change laws in due course to coincide witht he change in society. otherwise we would all still be living by laws made thousands of years ago, wich we are not,

buffalo you have a stange mind.

peace.
Click to expand...

lets say you did change it to right to bear small guns...how would this protect the society from a corrupt government? The government has bazookas and rocket launchers against citizens with guns? lol. the law was created so that when bad times come and government decides to obstain from the law, the citizens can defend themselves...just like the American clonists against the English Empire.
 
draqon

The Federalist Papers, seem to indicate that military style guns are the ones that are allowed for the people, and from the reading of the Histories of the Militia, it was required of every able bodied male in the colony's to have in his possession a gun of military caliber, and enough ammunition to report for call up with 60 rounds of ammunition and after that the government would supply the ammo, so the primary weapon in the Second Amendment, is military, first, be it pistol or rifle.
 
Last edited:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/19/u...46400&en=e2339a59c11d13c6&ei=5059&partner=AOL

Laws Limit Options When a Student Is Mentally Ill

Federal privacy and antidiscrimination laws restrict how universities can deal with students who have mental health problems.

For the most part, universities cannot tell parents about their children’s problems without the student’s consent. They cannot release any information in a student’s medical record without consent. And they cannot put students on involuntary medical leave, just because they develop a serious mental illness.

College officials say that a growing number of students arrive on campus with a history of mental-health problems and a prescription for psychotropic drugs. But screening for such problems would be illegal, admissions officers say.

“We’re restricted by the disabilities act from asking,” said Rick Shaw, Stanford’s admissions director. “We do ask a question, as most institutions do, about whether a student has been suspended or expelled from school, and if they have been, we ask them to write an explanation of it.”

Federal laws also restrict what universities can reveal. Generally, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, Ferpa, passed in 1974, makes it illegal to disclose a student’s records to family members without the student’s authorization.
 
Buffalo Roam said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/19/u...46400&en=e2339a59c11d13c6&ei=5059&partner=AOL

Laws Limit Options When a Student Is Mentally Ill

Federal privacy and antidiscrimination laws restrict how universities can deal with students who have mental health problems.

For the most part, universities cannot tell parents about their children’s problems without the student’s consent. They cannot release any information in a student’s medical record without consent. And they cannot put students on involuntary medical leave, just because they develop a serious mental illness.

College officials say that a growing number of students arrive on campus with a history of mental-health problems and a prescription for psychotropic drugs. But screening for such problems would be illegal, admissions officers say.

“We’re restricted by the disabilities act from asking,” said Rick Shaw, Stanford’s admissions director. “We do ask a question, as most institutions do, about whether a student has been suspended or expelled from school, and if they have been, we ask them to write an explanation of it.”

Federal laws also restrict what universities can reveal. Generally, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, Ferpa, passed in 1974, makes it illegal to disclose a student’s records to family members without the student’s authorization.
Click to expand...
At first glance I think that changing this law might be a good thing, but then I ask "What kind of abuses could this allow?". I can't think of any, but can anyone else?
 
EmptyForceOfChi said:
im not saying change the constitution just because of the school shooting.....

does the constitution say wich type of arms you are allowed to bear? because from what i can tell it does not it just says to "bear arms" nowdays "arms" is alot different to when the constitution was created correct?
Click to expand...

The Constitution is not meant to be the laws of the land, it is meant to guide the laws of the land.
The Constitution is actually a relatively small document that can be read in less than an hour.
The laws of a single, small town can take many days to read.
Federal laws take up entire rooms.

The point of the Constitution is to be a guideline for laws and to guarantee basic rights are protected.
If a law is written, it has to conform to the basic guidelines put forth in the constitution, and no infringe upon the rights afforded to citizens in the Constitution, or it is deemed an illegal law and is struck down.
The Constitution can be changed, but it takes a great deal of effort and cooperation to do so – and that’s the way it should be.
If it were easy to change, it would become an extraordinarily powerful political tool for whichever party was in power.

Think of it as the Ten Commandments.
You can make laws for specific occasions and specific scenarios, but if those laws contradict one or more of the Ten Commandments, then that law is not valid.

Does that make more sense?
 
one_raven said:
Rifles in the hands of trained members of regulated, legitimate militias is what they had in mind.
...
The right to bear arms was about the right of individual states to protect themselves from foreign powers, and if it came down to it, the Federal Government.
It was a matter of states' rights, not individual rights.
...
Again, it refers to a "well regulated Militia". Individuals walking the streets with concelaed handguns and semi-automatic rifles is NOT a well regualted Militia.
Click to expand...
Although there was some small contention those supporting the right for individuals to bear arms won conclusively. The intent was specifically to retain this right for the people as a balance against the control of the state. The National Guard is NOT the militia as conceived by the Founding Fathers, the militia was all of us.

All you need to do is check and see what their opinions were:

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair." -- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
Click to expand...

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... " -- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
Click to expand...

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." --James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
Click to expand...

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
--Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
Click to expand...

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." --Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
Click to expand...

"Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."
--Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
Click to expand...

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356
Click to expand...

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
-- Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836
Click to expand...

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/arms.html

~Raithere
 
You know, I was crunching the numbers, and he got like 3 or 4 thousand experience points.

Only two stars, though, unless the SWAT were activel involved, which I don't know if they were or not.
 
Raithere,

Thanks for the link, the quotes and the respectful reply.
Looks like a lot of good stuff I haven't seen.
I'll have to do some reading.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top