Can America get rid of guns? American't!

Ox, I hope that someday, someone tells you that you have no right to speak, and then throws you into prison for life without a trial.

And you'd deserve it, for making such a stupid statement.

I mean, really, the Constitution is probably one of the most sensible documents ever made. Without a basic idea of what human rights are, its far too easy for the government to ignore peoples rights.

Edited 4/2/2016 18:39:18

Without a basic idea of what human rights are, its far too easy for the government to ignore peoples rights.

That's actually all in the Genève documents, which America actually nullified in its lands, and still tortures folk with no proofs. Anyhow, human outlooks and knowledge on things change, I mean, American constitution didn't even count blackskins or indigenous Americans as human. It's groundable to see a document getting outdated over 300 years.

Also, constitution can just easily be ignored, whether it's good or not.

The constitution is bad enough as it is. Abolishing it would be the best thing America has ever done.

I'm really glad you aren't relevant in the world, if this is what makes you sleep at night.

Also, constitution can just easily be ignored, whether it's good or not.

Poor logic. Laws against murder can be ignored, that doesn't mean we stop enforcing them.

It's groundable to see a document getting outdated over 300 years.

I'd counter-argue the ideas written on it are still pretty viable. I:E. Freedom of speech, press,religion,trial,due process, and so forth...

I'd be for revising the constitution to say more freedoms for more folk, but Ox and his Orwellian buds want to get America to limit people's rights in order to establish false safety for people. This is what the government did with the patriot act, except that targeted other liberties. Also, that's the thing about the constitution being easily ignored, the people must make the government go along with the constitution by force if it is necessary. If not, the people at the top will continue to consolidate power and eventually smash down on any groups that threaten their power.

I'd counter-argue the ideas written on it are still pretty viable. I:E. Freedom of speech, press,religion,trial,due process, and so forth...

Yeah, America was a republic, which is now what is generally seen as the best kind of rule, today. Would you want to live by the standards in the 1700s? Anyhow, I looked up the constitution, here is something else the constitution definitely was not accounting for.

"In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

20 $ in 1783 against 20 $ in 2016? They shouldn't be expected to know economy.

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Yet the death penalty is still used (and I believe you support it, despite it being constitutionally banned).

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Hmm, the government forces upon businesses minimum wages, affirmative action, and serving all customers they get, but this is supported by the majority of Americans.

The vagueness of the Constitution is its biggest flaw. For instance, what is cruel and unusual? Should we kill a man who has committed murder, or should we let him rot behind bars? Which is more merciful?

Edited 4/2/2016 19:17:14

they need to bring back the chain gang for prisoners to help them rehab, my opinion.
We are wasting money putting and paying big money to feed criminals, when they could be contributing to the economy; furthermore if people are guilty beyond shadow of doubt of going on mass murdering sprees, then they should be allowed choose their own type of death penality, which could include, hanging., and ole-fashioned lynching,!

Edited 4/2/2016 20:24:55

Should we kill a man who has committed murder, or should we let him rot behind bars? Which is more merciful?

Killing is cruel, feeding and giving housing to a man is not.

Edited 4/2/2016 20:26:18

Considering you are the one who said America should let its soldiers rot on the streets for being "killers", I'm not sure you are in the best position to lecture on this topic.

For the record, I'm not a fan of the death penalty, but I think it is sadly necessary on certain rare cases.

(Serious now)

You know what's a flaw in the American constitution? The fact that it doesn't treat all humans as "humans". Only American humans.

This promotes inequality in the world. It gives Americans more rights than others. The perfect example is Guantanamo bay. Sure, terrorists tend to be bad people, but that doesn't mean they should be tortured.

Why should an American KKK terrorist not be tortured, but a Syrian IS member should be tortured? This is basic inequality because that IS member isn't American. Even worse: Why should an American psychopath not be tortured, but a foreign psychopath be tortured?

Now, I don't support IS. But I think IS should be given the same rights as the KKK, since they're both terrible groups. The fact that the KKK have more rights than captured military workers (NOT JUST TERRORISTS GET TORTURED) is abhorrent.

Basically, the reasoning that some people are tortured and some people are not, come down to whether someone is American or not. Someone being American does not make them better or worse than any other person, so foreign people should be given the same rights as Americans in American land, if they obsess over "equality" so much.

^ All humans should be given the right to a fair trial. Also, the government was usually very preferential to KKK, not getting in their way in their race pogroms. Folk often had to fight the KKK to not get lynched or raped, and the government even helped the KKK by sending police to disarm blacks of their weapons.

I would bet that the Black Panthers have killed more people than the KKK in the last 50 years, though the KKK was and is has done horrible things before then, that I'm not condoning.

Edited 4/2/2016 21:35:16

The Black Panthers didn't exist for fifty years.

I'm part Native American and am not racist, in fact I have African American inlaws. I think the KKK is OK tgese days too"



one time a nigga called me white trash, and so I had to
kicked his ass, with his designer clothes and no job bullshit.

as Chris rock said, "there's a clear difference between niggas and black people, and niggas have to go."

also my brother is 6'8" 260 pnds retired seargent, and he once backhand slapped a muslim in Iraq that beheaded a lot of American, as I assume he was about to be executed.

Edited 4/2/2016 22:41:45

Considering you are the one who said America should let its soldiers rot on the streets for being "killers", I'm not sure you are in the best position to lecture on this topic.

Frankly, they earn to be put on try and if found guilty, shot. Letting them go free and unpunished is already way more than they earn, and paying them? Paying serial killers? No way. This is irrelevent anyway.

For the record, I'm not a fan of the death penalty, but I think it is sadly necessary on certain rare cases.

What is that even supposed to mean? You're either for or against.

plz report him to fizzer for be an American hating terrorist.

Edited 4/2/2016 22:50:49