jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (37 posts)

What is Wrong with America?

  1. SpanStar profile image60
    SpanStarposted 3 years ago

    We just had an outlaw neighborhood watch gunslinger and now we have this so-called police chief spewing profanity and exhibiting violent hostilities with the exhibition of his gun show demonstrations.

    Where is this blood lust coming from. After watching this guy's video do you really want this police chief in your local elementary school giving instructions to your children?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/2 … 43921.html

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/01/us/pennsl … index.html

    1. Disappearinghead profile image88
      Disappearingheadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      He's just making up for a small penis.

    2. Silverspeeder profile image59
      Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You Americans do have a problem don't you? Blaming everyone else for the a situation created a few hundred years ago by a group of men who saw it nessessary for individuals to defend themselves.

      Now with the onslaught of criminality some want to see that right taken away others want to see it enforced.

      Blaming god or the politicians for the inability of humans to feel safe with or without guns is madness and will never solve the problems of gun ownership.

  2. Zelkiiro profile image83
    Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago

    Surprise surprise, right-wingers love war and violence and want more of it. Does it really surprise anyone that the 2nd Amendment is the only one they want to protect?

    1. SpanStar profile image60
      SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      What you're said does gives one something to think about.

    2. profile image83
      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Are you serious?  This is your deep thought about conservatives?

      We value other amendments too and despise it when people say that our constitution is a "living, breathing document."  You hear us defend the second amendment the most, because it's the amendment that is most under fire from liberals who think they are wiser than the founding fathers.

      Conservatives despise war too,  and many of them have been more outspoken about foreign entanglements than liberals.  If you would like to begin a historical debate on this topic, I'd be happy to do so.

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
        Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        "We value other amendments too and despise it when people say that our constitution is a 'living, breathing document.'"
        That's because (many) conservatives don't like to hear the truth.

        The Constitution is absolutely a living document: the founders deliberately built it that way! There are rules for changing the Constitution right there in the Constitution itself!

        Now, the framers, being pretty sharp guys, deliberately made it really really hard to change the Constitution, so any time someone does want to change it, it's really really easy to stop them. Which means that any time the Constitution gets changed, a whole lot of folks have to agree that the change is an improvement.

        This doesn't always work out (prohibition) but it usually does.

        1. profile image83
          Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Many liberals are arrogant enough to think that they are the only people who know the truth.

          The constitution is not a living document.  If you want to change it, add an amendment.  You don't have enough support to add an amendment to change the constitution, do you?  Thus, it doesn't seem like it's living or breathing too much right now.  I guess you can appoint more liberal judges and try to amend the constitution judicially.  Good luck with your living, breathing document.

          By the way, there was a reason the founding fathers made it difficult to change the constitution.  They felt that change would likely lead to an erosion of freedom.  You are right when you say they were pretty sharp guys, a lot sharper than what we have had since.  I'll take their wisdom, as ancient as it may seem, over any progressive's idea of what freedom should be.

          Didn't the progressives of the time think up prohibition?  The answer, by the way, is yes.  Change for the sake of change isn't always a good plan.  At the rate we're going, we're going to progress into bankruptcy.  We've already progressed into a system that targets individuals through the IRS, listens to our calls, views our emails, watches us through the use of drones, and has a kill list with Americans on it.  These policies were supported by the same liberals, republicans, and progressives who want to erode gun rights.  Forgive me if I am skeptical of this "progress."

          1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
            Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            "Many liberals are arrogant enough to think that they are the only people who know the truth."
            In this case, you seem to be mistaking "thinking one knows the truth" with "actually knowing the truth."

            "The constitution is not a living document.  If you want to change it, add an amendment. "

            Exactly. That's what it means to have a living document: it's not frozen in time; there's a process for amending it built right in.

            The fact that the amendment process is difficult doesn't change that fact that the amendment process exists.

            We can argue about whether a given proposed amendment would be a good idea or not, and I'm sure it would be an interesting discussion, but you cannot deny that it is possible to amend the Constitution, and that possibility makes the Constitution a living document.

            Words mean things.

            1. profile image83
              Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I didn't know words mean things. . .  Deep, deep thoughts.

              It is possible to amend the constitution.  I'll concede that much.  Progressives like to call it a "living, breathing document" because of their desire to whimsically change it at will, thinking that their omnipotent wisdom exceeds that of Franklin, Jefferson, and Adams.  Thank God the founding fathers knew that it should be difficult to change, much like the writing on granite.  Granite is not living or breathing, and the constitution isn't either, metaphorically or literally.

              Shall we progress right back into prohibition?

              1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
                Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                "It is possible to amend the constitution.  I'll concede that much. "

                Good. Then you realize that it's a living document?

                "Granite is not living or breathing, and the constitution isn't either, metaphorically or literally."
                Oh. Apparently you don't. The cognitive dissonance in there must be deafening.

                "thinking that their omnipotent wisdom exceeds that of Franklin, Jefferson, and Adams."

                So, any changes to the Constitution made after Amendment 10 don't count as much? They're not as good as the rest of the Constitution?

                So you don't think, say, the Thirteenth Amendment (Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
                Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.) is as good as the earlier bits? Like the bits that allow some citizens to buy and sell other people?

                How about the 19th Amendment? The one that guarantees women the right to vote? That's another thing that the likes of Franklin, Jefferson*, and Adams didn't think was important. Should it be thrown out?

                Sorry, but the framers didn't have a corner on the wisdom market and they knew it. The world has in fact moved on from the 18th century, as the framers knew that it would. That's why they established a process for updating/changing the Constitution: so that the document wouldn't be stuck in the 18th century when the rest of the world was living in the 21st. That's called foresight. And that's why the Constitution is a living document--because it can be adapted to the changing world.

                Somehow, you can know that the Constitution was designed to be amended, but can still insist that it's not a living document. That's like saying your bike is a ten-speed but insisting that you can't shift gears. Wow.

                *By the way, Jefferson did not participate in the Constitutional Convention: he was in France at the time, being an ambassador (and possibly getting it on with Ms. Hemings).

                1. profile image83
                  Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  First off, I didn't say Jefferson was at the convention. Go back, and you won't see me mention the Constitutional Convention once.  You are either putting words in my mouth or making assumptions.  I said, "Thank God the founding fathers knew that it should be difficult to change, much like the writing on granite. "  I mentioned the founding fathers not the Constitutional Convention.  Jefferson is widely considered a founding father.  In 1973, Richard B. Morris, a famous historian, identified the following seven figures as the key Founding Fathers: John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington. 

                  I said that the progressive mentality does not exceed the genius of Franklin, Adams, and Jefferson.  As the primary author of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson's legacy as a significant figure and founding father are secure. 

                  You are acting as an extremist when "interpreting" my clear statements.  Remember, words have meaning?  I have not said that the constitution cannot be amended.  I have said that progressives, like you, try to amend it too often.  That doesn't negate the value of some amendments but points out how ridiculous others are.  I used prohibition as an example of progressives in action.

                  You say, "Sorry, but the framers didn't have a corner on the wisdom market and they knew it. The world has in fact moved on from the 18th century, as the framers knew that it would."  Name one politician you would trust to improve upon the thoughts of Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, or any of the founding fathers.  I can't name one, not one.  Your entire statement seems to revolve around the fact that the constitution is full of old ideas.  When the ideas are right, they don't need to be updated by progressives.  Change for the sake of change isn't always a good plan.

                  1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
                    Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    "First off, I didn't say Jefferson was at the convention."
                    No, that' true. We were talking about the Constitution and the amendment thereof, and you said that progressives think "their omnipotent wisdom exceeds that of Franklin, Jefferson, and Adams."

                    That led me to believe you lumped Jefferson in with the others at the Constitutional Convention--you know, the ones who wrote the Constitution? Now you're saying that you know Jefferson didn't take part. That's good. I'm glad we're clear on that,

                    "As the primary author of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson's legacy as a significant figure and founding father are secure."
                    And slave-owner. Don't forget slave-owner. As were Madison and Washington. This is important to remember, because as brilliant as they were, they also got a couple really important things wrong. The slavery thing and the women's suffrage thing stand out in my mind.

                    "You are acting as an extremist when 'interpreting' my clear statements. Remember, words have meaning?"
                    Yeah, and you seem to like to pretend they mean different things when it suits you. In what way have I acted as an extremist in my posts today?
                    (Answer: in no way at all. You seem to be mistaking "extremist" to mean "dude on the internet who points out the inconsistencies in your arguments.")

                    "I have not said that the constitution cannot be amended. "
                    Right, but then you turned right around and said, "the Constitution is not a living document," which means the exact opposite of "the Constitution can be amended."

                    "I have said that progressives, like you, try to amend it too often."
                    Yeah, okay. What amendments to the Constitution have "progressives, like [me]" been proposing lately, and why do you disagree with them? Can you give a few examples? I mean, if "progressives like [me]" try to amend the Constitution "too often," there must be a dozen or so crazy amendments that "progressives, like [me]" have proposed lately.

                    "Name one politician you would trust to improve upon the thoughts of Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, or any of the founding fathers."
                    Elizabeth Warren. But it doesn't matter. If someone comes up with an amendment and gets enough support, Congress will pass it and the states will ratify it.

                    "Your entire statement seems to revolve around the fact that the constitution is full of old ideas.  When the ideas are right, they don't need to be updated by progressives."
                    Yeah, well, the framers forgot to tell us that you can't own a guy, forgot to make sure that women would get to have a vote, and forgot to ensure that everyone would be equally protected by the law. The ideas in the constitution are pretty good. The problem is that the framers didn't anticipate all the creative ways in which politicians might try to restrict the people's rights, and in many cases forgot to specify that the constitution applies to all citizens, even ones the majority (or at least, a loud and vocal minority) might not like very much.

                    As for people trying to amend the Constitution, the latest proposed amendment came from  a Kansas Representative, Republican Tim Huelskamp. And it's an amendment designed to restrict the liberty of Americans:

                    "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

                    Yeah, those crazy progressives--oh, wait....

                    Really, the best amendments to the Constitution just make it very clear that yes, these rights are for everybody, even if they're not white guys. For a while, it was looking like we might have to amend the Constitution to specify that rights are for gay people, too, but as time goes on, more and more people seem to be realizing this, so a Constitutional amendment may be unnecessary after all.

  3. SpanStar profile image60
    SpanStarposted 3 years ago

    Very serious. Perhaps one of the biggest problems in this country is concerning ourselves too much with the Second Amendment. When the value of human life is secondary to the law itself then the law needs to be changed.

    Just how many innocent lives will have to be taken based on the Second Amendment when somebody finally grows up and says "enough."

  4. A Troubled Man profile image59
    A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago

    "We have the God-given right to keep and bear arms, to self-defense, etc., etc. Our Declaration of Independence (2nd para) recognizes that our Rights come from God and are unalienable.

    In addition, the 2nd Amendment to our federal Constitution recognizes that this God-given right to keep and bear arms is to be free from any interference WHATSOEVER from the federal government."

    http://chiefkessler.com/


    No, religion does not cause conflict. lol

    1. SpanStar profile image60
      SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Somebody Please Call a Paramedic for Me-You of all people talking about God-given right when you spent a year that I know of telling Christians there is no God What a Hypocrite.

      This kind of flawed thinking is the reason people should not have guns.

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Oops Span Star,read the last sentence please.

        1. SpanStar profile image60
          SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          ok I read it now what?

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            "No, religion does not cause conflict. lol "


            Where's the hypocrisy?

            1. SpanStar profile image60
              SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              The hypocrisy is in a Troubled man stating that there is no God then using God to defend his position.

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                But he wasn't using god to defend his position. He was quoting that deranged policeman in your OP!

                1. SpanStar profile image60
                  SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  After considering what you have said I went back and reread his comments again, perhaps you're right you would think that after all these years he would learn to write clearer than he does-people aren't mind readers and it helps the reader when people say things like this was written, he/she said etc.

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    He did enclose it in "quote" marks but perhaps he should have kicked off with a "he said".

              2. A Troubled Man profile image59
                A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                That is a lie, I did no such thing.

      2. A Troubled Man profile image59
        A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Interesting, this has been explained dozens of times, yet you still pull the same fallacy out of thin air.

        It's like talking to little children about Santa Clause, because they believe in Santa Claus, we talk to them on their level of understanding pretending Santa is real so we can relate to them.

        This is not about being hypocritical, it's about stooping to another person's level of intellect.

        What's really hilarious about your misunderstanding is the fact that I quoted another person, never once indicating anything about whether or not I believe in gods.

        Perhaps, reading comprehension skills may be necessary for you to learn.

        1. SpanStar profile image60
          SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          My recommendation to you would be to take night classes on grammatical writing.

  5. Jeff Berndt profile image92
    Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago

    Got a question for you:

    What gun would Jesus carry?



    Give up?

    A nail gun! >Badump-bump!<


    ('Cos he's a carpenter.)

  6. John Holden profile image60
    John Holdenposted 3 years ago

    Jeff Berndt-one
    Education Answer-Nil.

    1. profile image83
      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      John,

      Oh, isn't that nice.  The socialist who isn't American but loves to bash America likes the progressive's politics.

      You won't even acknowledge reality, North Korea's recent threat towards America. What's an endorsement worth when it comes from somebody who denies something that was reported by CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, FOX, CNBC, CSPAN, and the BBC even worth?  The answer is below nil, negative value.  Thanks.

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Doesn't alter the fact that, whether I agree with him or not, Jeff is putting over a cogent argument whilst you are all over the place contradicting yourself right left and centre.

 
working