Outlawing guns in the US ...

[McRocket]

Re: Here's the decoding ...

The ultimate irony is the fact that the US is one of the few nations, and pretty much the only major power-wielding nation, that has never been controlled by its military in its entire history.

100+ years ago, Great Britian was probably the most powerful contry on Earth. And nowhere during their rein of power were they run by the military - to my knowledge.

It's civilian leaders have not been wise, have been stupid, have even gone against its Constitution, but they were term-limited and, in virtually all cases, over-ridden by other civilians in the same government.

Because the civilians that lead this country are of the people, by the people, for the people, elected by the people in an imperfect system that is the best we know of -- one balanced by both majority rule along with objective, minority protection without subjective "whim" feelings.

Now that you are back on the political commentary bandwagon, I assume we have to hear your bi-weekly U.S. Constitution masturbation session. Spoken like a true privileged white, WASP American male. Someone who wouldn't know true hardship if it bit him on the ass.

By the people? What people are you talking about? Not Native Americans. And sure as shit not African Americans. How can you applaud a Constitution and a Bill Of Rights that was in place when slavery on a scale that has never been seen before or since was implemented? Where was your precious Bill Of Rights then?
How dare you talk about your system with suich high regard knowing the tremendous suffering that this precious system of yours allowed to happen.

Your system allows for and even encourages greed and corruption on a scale unheard of in Western society. We in Canada have almost a good a standard of living as Americans. And our poor and lower middle class have a far better standard of living then you do. And yet, on a per-capita basis, we have a fraction of the corruption that you have. And our system is far from perfect as well.

And it's not your precious Constitution that has made America great. It is geography and it's people.
The Atlantic and Pacific Oceans saved your butts SO often.
And then when horrific things like Iraq happen, it is the American people that finally say 'enough'.
It is the humans that inhabit your lands that have and will continue to make America great. In spite of your system - not because of it.

And the next time you want to tell a bunch of people how great your Constitution and Bill Of Rights are; go and find a group of African Americans and try and explain it to them. Not online. In person.
Talking on here is nothing. Your preaching to the choir here.

 

[bmandesign]

Re: Here's the decoding ...

And the next time you want to tell a bunch of people how great your Constitution and Bill Of Rights are; go and find a group of African Americans and try and explain it to them. Not online. In person.
Talking on here is nothing. Your preaching to the choir here.

As a bi-racial American, part white part black, and married to a black woman the constitution and the bill of rights are the greatest documents on the face of the earth. America is not perfect this is true, but I would rather live hear than any other place on earth.

 

[geraldhp42]

Re: Here's the decoding ...

Now that you are back on the political commentary bandwagon, I assume we have to hear your bi-weekly U.S. Constitution masturbation session. Spoken like a true privileged white, WASP American male. Someone who wouldn't know true hardship if it bit him on the ass.

...

And the next time you want to tell a bunch of people how great your Constitution and Bill Of Rights are; go and find a group of African Americans and try and explain it to them. Not online. In person.
Talking on here is nothing. Your preaching to the choir here.

As a white American male whose parents both come from family that had suffered during the Great Depression and having to barely get by with large families, I'm gonna call this bluff on behalf of those of us who do support the Constitution. Tomorrow when I have to go out and visit my old campus and if I see such a group I'll ask them. In fact I might get a good sample of people and see what they say in regards to this.

 

[McRocket]

As a white American male whose parents both come from family that had suffered during the Great Depression and having to barely get by with large families, I'm gonna call this bluff on behalf of those of us who do support the Constitution. Tomorrow when I have to go out and visit my old campus and if I see such a group I'll ask them. In fact I might get a good sample of people and see what they say in regards to this.

Bluff? Ask them.

And to clarify. Don't ask them if they like the Bill of Rights. They will probably think the Bill is a good thing - as do I.
Ask them about the system of government that was set up over 200 years ago and if they think that that system has served them well.

That is the 'bluff' I ask you to call.

Thanks **********. I really appreciate it.

But I have to learn to edit my posts better before I post them.

Though I liked both versions. I just thought the one that you quoted was a little long - so I tried to shorten it.

 

[geraldhp42]

Huzzah.

 

[dangerousD]

Back on topic: To paraphrase Chris Rock, let everyone have their guns. Make the motherfucking bullets cost $5000 each.

 

[ninetysixcavy]

Now that you are back on the political commentary bandwagon, I assume we have to hear your bi-weekly U.S. Constitution masturbation session. Spoken like a true privileged white, WASP American male. Someone who wouldn't know true hardship if it bit him on the ass.

You have no idea who he is. He could be white, black, yellow, orange…green for all you know. And claiming that whites can’t suffer from hardship is racist, is it not?

By the people? What people are you talking about? Not Native Americans. And sure as shit not African Americans. How can you applaud a Constitution and a Bill Of Rights that was in place when slavery on a scale that has never been seen before or since was implemented? Where was your precious Bill Of Rights then?

There were plenty of indentured servants who were not African American that suffered in America during slavery:
"In the United States, indentured servitude was abolished along with slavery when the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution passed in 1865"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Indentured_servant

In addition, do a brief search on the minefields of Mesabi Range in late 20th century Minnesota and the working conditions of those who built the Hoover dam, for example. Although not as vicious as slavery, the point is plenty of people have suffered to make America what it is. It wasn’t just slaves.

Your system allows for and even encourages greed and corruption on a scale unheard of in Western society. We in Canada have almost a good a standard of living as Americans. And our poor and lower middle class have a far better standard of living then you do. And yet, on a per-capita basis, we have a fraction of the corruption that you have. And our system is far from perfect as well.

Encourages corruption? How? It amuses me how people from other countries always critique America. You take a country of 30M and compare it to one ten times as big, as if that's even fair. I could move to Canada and I suppose it would probably be very different. And of course a country that has a pop. of 30 mill is going to likely be living better as a whole; it’s just common sense. You compare Canada and USA as if it’s a fair association, but this is like camparing apples to oranges.

And it's not your precious Constitution that has made America great. It is geography and it's people.
The Atlantic and Pacific Oceans saved your butts SO often.
And then when horrific things like Iraq happen, it is the American people that finally say 'enough'.
It is the humans that inhabit your lands that have and will continue to make America great. In spite of your system - not because of it.

Spoken like a true Canuck. Wrong. It's a big part of it. At least we don't get thrown in jail for criticizing our country/government/establishment like other countries in the world. At least we have basic rights that other countries don't.

And the next time you want to tell a bunch of people how great your Constitution and Bill Of Rights are; go and find a group of African Americans and try and explain it to them. Not online. In person.
Talking on here is nothing. Your preaching to the choir here.

You say that as if African Americans and Natives are the only ones who have the right to critique Ameica. I never owned slaves and I am not a descendent of a slave owner. Most people in America fit under this category as well. My great grandparents never had it great in America, but they worked hard and are part of what made America what it is today.

As a bi-racial American, part white part black, and married to a black woman the constitution and the bill of rights are the greatest documents on the face of the earth. America is not perfect this is true, but I would rather live hear than any other place on earth.

So right. (There you go McRocket. You got your response) They are the greatest documents on the face of the earth. I know of several other government entities that modeled their constitutions exactly after America’s (Japan, Liberia, and United Nations, to name a few). I'm pretty sure there are countless others as well.

 

[geraldhp42]

Please, for the love of any deity that you might hold sacred, can we stop with the venom and bile drenched rhetoric that's been flying back and forth here? Is anyone trying to adhere to some sort of logic without turning to a base emotional response?

How about some qualitative evidence on the original topic? How about showing some numbers, like saying "Here is the violent crime rate and murder rate in country X_i up the year Y_i in which they enacted Z_i. Here is the violent crime rate and murder rate after Y. Also, here are rates for {a^1_1,...a^m_n} where a^i_j are other statistics that could be affected. Therefore, gun control had this effect..." without having to sift through all the drama over how much you hate or love the system of government the US has.

And also as much as I want to try to understand where you're coming from Fox and McRocket the rhetoric surrounding your statements makes you come off like angst filled teenagers in an intro to debate high school class.

 

[McRocket]

You have no idea who he is. He could be white, black, yellow, orange…green for all you know. And claiming that whites can’t suffer from hardship is racist, is it not?

I believe he has told us that he is white.
And where exactly did I claim that whites cannot suffer hardship? You cannot because I did not.

You say that as if African Americans and Natives are the only ones who have the right to critique Ameica.

I did not type it. Nor do I think that.

They are the greatest documents on the face of the earth.

I did not realize that you are familiar with every document on the face of the Earth?
Because that is the only way you could make the statement you made with the remotest sliver of fact to base it on.

 

[marquis2]

Then I don't think you have a strong enough grasp of history... it was intended exactly for that. They left England because of the government. They came here to start new and to avoid repeating the same mistakes and ending up in the situation that led them to leave England they wrote the Bill of Rights to protect people from becoming subjects or servants to a government.

I am only looking at the wording of the Amendment itself. It is abundantly clear that the issue they are addressing is preservation of the state and the right to bear arms is their way of ensuring it.I find it impossible to see any other interpretation of the words used.It was written in the days before standing armies.

 

[McRocket]

Please, for the love of any deity that you might hold sacred, can we stop with the venom and bile drenched rhetoric that's been flying back and forth here?

I gotta tell you, I like that line. You have a gift for words.

And also as much as I want to try to understand where you're coming from Fox and McRocket the rhetoric surrounding your statements makes you come off like angst filled teenagers in an intro to debate high school class.

I do get rather emotional when people continually put up a system of government under whose watch millions of people were enslaved for decades. And treated as sub human for many decades more.

If someone wishes to call the Constitution a document with some forward thinking ideas? Fine. I can live with that. Are there worse systems on the planet? Of course there are.
But to put it up as this amazing document while so many suffered under it is disgusting and insulting to me as a human being.
And anyone - ANYONE - that thinks otherwise is wrong to do so.
Not maybe. Not possibly. Definitely.

And I am white. Can you imagine what those natives/blacks whose descendent's suffered under the Constitution and those who enforced it think about it?

And I am NOT stating that they are the only ones to suffer. Far from it. But they are probably the ones who suffered the most.


But I have hyjacked this thread, for which I am somewhat sorry. And I will stop provided others do as well.

 

[McRocket]

Congrats to ********** on 7,000 posts, BTW.

Man, the mods must hate it whenever they see a 'guns in USA' thread - lol.

And they probably hate it even more when they see me wade into the debate.

Sorry guys, just being myself...a (hopefully) well intentioned, pain-in-the-ass.

Anyway, back to the 2'nd Amendment part. Though I realize Prof will probably want to get in a few words about what I and/or fox typed. Fair enough. I will not respond to it unless asked to by him.

Just wanted to put you mods minds a tiny bit at rest.

Nighty night fellows.

 

[bodie54]

I am only looking at the wording of the Amendment itself. It is abundantly clear that the issue they are addressing is preservation of the state and the right to bear arms is their way of ensuring it.I find it impossible to see any other interpretation of the words used.It was written in the days before standing armies.

Your original post on this thread stating this same assertion was responded to by at least two people. If you choose to disregard the input of those here who are more familiar with american history than yourself, a simple google search will prove your assertion abundantly incorrect; and even through the writings of those who framed the amendment.

I don't much care for Jehovah's Witnesses but they are right - people in this country worship their flag and their country - and it's scary.

On the contrary, if we're the mindless sheep you like to characterize us as, then wouldn't we just as mindlessly give over our second amendment rights to the flag-waving government you think we're so brainwashed by?

Y'all wanna pick apart our failures, please do. There have been many, and there is still much work to be done here. Students of international relations have told me that you can't reasonably judge nations by the same standards you judge individuals. Over millenia all powerful nations have stumbled, to greater or lesser degrees, when it comes to ethics. But no major power in history has an ethical record superior to that of The United States, and sometimes, just sometimes, even those of us who are the most objective critics of our own system get good and fucking fed up with being excoriated as if we have a human rights record that's on a level with the world's (and history's) most noxious totalitarian states.

 

[BlueBalls]

^ Your never going to get through man the shades are drawn

 

[marquis2]

Your original post on this thread stating this same assertion was responded to by at least two people. If you choose to disregard the input of those here who are more familiar with american history than yourself, a simple google search will prove your assertion abundantly incorrect; and even through the writings of those who framed the amendment.



.

I take your point on this.Of course my knowledge of American history is slight for two reasons;in terms of British history the secession of America was just one of a succession of events and also the American history I learnt was from the British perspective.
Legal documents however have to be interpreted by what they actually say,not what the writer meant to say.That's why lawyers charge vast sums to make sure that the wording is clear , unambiguous and reflect the true wishes of the client.
A thing I find interesting is what happens to the relevance of a document in which words have changed their meaning over time.In the 1770s arms might well have meant swords (the right to wear a sword in public was a civic honour), it might have meant a firearm of some description although probably few could afford them anyway.It certainly didn't mean a repeating or automatic weapon because these lay in the future.
Some time ago every London cab had to carry a bale of hay because the cab legislation was laid down in the days when cabs were horse drawn.Eventually all anachronistic laws were combed out and either rescinded or modified.So what is written in one century may well need to be revisited in another.

 

[Member2019]

What the fuck does any of this have to do with the 2nd Amendment?

What the fuck does any of some of this shit that has been posted have anything to do with the 2nd Amendment?
What the fuck does any of some of this shit that has been posted have anything to do with the organization of the US government?
What the fuck does any of some of this shit that has been posted have anything to do with the Constitution and due process?

None!

People have used subjective arguments to say, "oh, these politicians 'don't count,' so what they agree with 'don't count.'"
You know what? That's how it starts! You start saying, "oh, these people 'don't count' because blah, blah, blah."

The Constitution and due process is not something you bypass because you don't agree with it.
It is not something you bypass because you subjectively think it leads to whatever you think is "wrong" or "immoral."
It is simply what it is, a process, a means to guarantee there is a
long debate, long consideration for a long-standing result.

"On a whim" has resulted in more death and harm to many than anything, especially citizens.
I think people also forget that no single part of the US government did something "on their own."
Due process has been followed, often to many, many, many screwups, and then it takes years to reverse.

But that's the key point, wrongs are reversed, wrongs are put right, even if people are harmed in the process.
Because due process and checks'n balances afford that, even if it's imperfect because supermajority mistakes take time to right.
But supermajority mistakes are still far more difficult to make than simple majority ones in the first place!

No matter how you think the US government "should be run" today, and want to reverse a half-millenia of deliberations, it changes nothing.
The problem with a Democratic-Republic is that politicians are a reflection of the people, so if you argue it's about dollars, then that's the people.
The people who don't want to give up things, they want their government to do things for them.

Because having government do things for people is a terrible idea, because it's always about taking from others.
And that's never "objective," it's always "subjective," and the simple majority tends to confiscate until there is nothing left.
This is the crux of the "Great Debate," who is "objective" and who are merely "subjective" when it comes to the "moral delima."

Ironically, the only thing our Founding Fathers could agree on was that a single, large federal government should never be that instrument.
The only thing they could do is install a Constitution, and then an over-ruling Supreme Court, that would keep the people from undoing their open protections.
It hardly means people won't be taken advantage of, nor does it guarantee an absolutely "fair" state.

But it was in the best efforts to make a "free" state, a "free" country where your own failures were your own, and your own successes were your own.
The US Constitution reads "provide for the common defense" and "to promote the general welfare."
At no point does the US Constitution read "provide the general welfare."

The government is here to protect your rights, not take them away, and when one or even two portions fail, another one does not, under due process.
And the government is here to protect your individual choices, not take them away or, worse yet, mandate them to be "fair."
That's why it made it as easy for anyone to make their own success "on their own," not merely make it easy for anyone to "get a job" working for someone else.

That's why they call this the "land of opportunity."
That's why they call this the "land of the free."
And there's are reason why we use the term "home of the brave."

You may single out the US as one who abuses its power, and ignore the histories, including recent, of many other nations.
You may single out the US as one who is not deserving of its status, its respect, it's whatever you disagree with.
But that still has nothing to do with the civics of the US, that is separate from foreign policy, macroeconomics, etc...

Our economy could be destroyed, our infrastructure as well, but the thing that makes the US difference is that we employ our civics.
Sure, we waiver from it, but not for long, because the balances and mechanisms are in place to right wrongs over due process.
That has been the issue with every other nation "on a whim" in the world, and why they have varied from dictatorships, military rule, nationalization and countless other "excuses" for rights violations that are permanent until a revolution.

Our system is far from perfect, we get morons and abuses and great inefficiencies out of civilian elected rule.
But it is a system of due process, so any wrong will eventually be righted, even after people are harmed, but so people will not be in the future.
Rights are suspended, violated, but not over long-term, they are put back after due process, after balances, after the highest rules of law are made objective by higher authorities.

The founders of this country knew people will hurt themselves, via their own representation in a Democratic-Republic.
They knew there was no way to guarantee that the people or their elected official would be "just" or "right" at any point in time "on a whim" of simple majority.
They knew they had to put in processes and balances to guarantee that makes would be made less, and could be righted as well.

Hence the concept of the Constitution, and the enforcement of it by both an Executive (not elected by the people originally) and an interpretation based on meritocracy selection by the Executive (not the people).
To keep the people from destroying their own rights, from letting their "whim majority" today destroy their own future, at least over time after due process had taken its course (even if it happens in short periods of time).
And that's why it takes a supermajority for the people to override those checks, and that supermajority undergoes due process itself, to make those changes.

Because mistakes of a long-term and far-reaching are far less likely to happen when you require both time and a supermajority, than just one day with a simple majority.
Mistakes that are agreed upon by an overwhelming majority of the people, or better yet, to correct a mistake the overwhelming majority of the people agree should have not been made.

That is what the Constitution is about, and not political alignments, foreign policy or whatever you want to subjectively disagree with.
Supermajorties and due process don't guarantee "objective" decisions either, but they are far less "subjective" than what I see from many here.
And that's all our founders could guarantee, that there would be due process, not for the "short term," but for the "long term" preservation of the state of, by and for the people.

 

[pathfinder]

Wow... I'm not even sure I need to respond. Seems like a lot of the bases have been covered.

Ask an African-American what they think of the Bill of Rights and Constitution? Well, considering how many people died in the Civil War in order to ensure those documents protected the rights of all people living in this country, not just "the white man" I'm surprised you would even bring that up. And is it really necessary to tack on "African" to them? It implies they hold some sort of allegiance to a continent 98% of them have probably never been to and would more than likely never want to live in. I've been in enough countries in Africa to say that even during the period of slavery in this country, they probably had it better than a lot of the people in Africa had then and the biggest difference is things haven't improved for them in Africa. So as a "European"-American, I'm pretty sick of all the people who put American as second, as if they want to distance themselves from that part of their heritage.

As for Canada... well, I don't even know how you can compare that to America. Like someone else said... apples and footballs.

Those sacred documents have been the basis for everything that has kept this country together. Yeah, they might have been written in a time when "all men are created equally" was almost hypocritical, but look what that document has allowed this country to evolve into. On any given day people in this country have far more rights than almost any other person on the planet. Yes, a lot of blood has been spilled to get to this point, but considering the positive changes that have resulted, it wasn't in vain.

I don't know why I keep trying to rebut here... it's pretty obvious the opinions on this board are polar and nobody is going to change anyone's minds... which is why if you, Fox, want to change the world, you probably need to try doing it someplace other than a porn forum. I just can't foresee the history books stating "The changes in this country all started with one man on an internet porn site".

 

[Member2019]

Over-simplification that is incorrect ...

Then I don't think you have a strong enough grasp of history...

Actually, after reading what you stated below, I think you over-simplified it.
That can be dangerous.

it was intended exactly for that. They left England because of the government.

It was many things, including the Common Law at the time (jailing debtors), the lack of rights of American residents versus other UK citizens, and select things that would later make it in to the Bill of Rights.

They came here to start new and to avoid repeating the same mistakes and ending up in the situation that led them to leave England they wrote the Bill of Rights to protect people from becoming subjects or servants to a government.

Er, sort of.

First off, states broke from England and its representatives authored The Articles of Confederation, a very loose federal association.
And we quickly realized that it was a very powerless federal government that would cause issues.
Especially in the fact that every state had veto power and states rights were absolute.

So, secondly, state representatives created The Constitution, which was almost the biggest blunder in the world.
An overwhelming majority of states would not sign it, because most feared it would quickly result in the same thing as before, an over-riding federal without any local rights.
As a people, we weren't any "more perfect" than the UK under the Magna Carta, because all people can be equally mistaken when it comes to government and rule.

It was only when the states refused to sign it that the federal took over 100 submissions and put together The Bill of Rights, ranked in order, plus a 10th "superclause."
Once those were Amended to the Constitution, all of the states eventually ratified it.
Now those "Rights" were many that the citizens of the UK still do not enjoy today, and it's very scary what is going on over there.

Among what has happened with countless other countries -- all in the name of "this leader is right, so we should suspend the law."
In the US, when leaders try to do that, they are over-ridden by balances and due process, even if it doesn't happen immediately.
Because "on a whim today" decisions are hardly objective, they are subjective, and due process does a far better job of trying to ensure objectivity.

 

[pathfinder]

Re: Over-simplification that is incorrect ...

Actually, after reading what you stated below, I think you over-simplified it.
That can be dangerous.

Well, I couldn't see the point in regurgitating an entire history book when it pretty much falls on deaf ears anyway. There are about as many open minded people contributing to this "debate" as there are porn haters. So giving an entire history lesson in one post would just result in a response like "well, that's your opinion, but I'm still right."

 

[Member2019]

Ask an African-American what they think of the Bill of Rights and Constitution? Well, considering how many people died in the Civil War in order to ensure those documents protected the rights of all people living in this country, not just "the white man" I'm surprised you would even bring that up.

No, that's a falicy of why the Civil War started.
Yes, many "made the call" because they believe the South was morally wrong, and wanted Emancipation.
But not only was Emancipation off-the-table when Lincoln raised an army, but it was not fully granted in 1963.
But that is another story.

The Civil War is a study in a minority feeling powerless against a majority.
It is the ultimate example of what happens when a government of the people sees a minority raped by a simple majority.
It was more than about slavery, but taxes on the Southern economy versus the North, entitlements, etc...

The South felt it had no representation whatsoever, and ignoring some details, they were correct.

Unfortunately, they were also quite blind of some of that "root cause" at the same time.
Many of the "Radical Republicans" enacted many taxes on the south out of pure hate of slavery.
They also felt justified in purposely hurting the South in countless legislation that benefited the North at their expense.

The ultimate irony is that the South hurt its own Americans, and the North used that as an excuse to hurt the entire South.
An even bigger irony is that it didn't end after the Civil War, which is why organizations like the KKK came about.
Yeah, you can point the finger at people and claim "they are wrong" and be 100% correct, but you can also use 100% abuse in how you treat them too.

And the worst of it is that none of what the North did actually benefited the enslaved African American.
Not before the war, not during the war, and God knows not after the war.
It was about blame, justification, superiority thinking, etc... and not about the African American.

Even if some North soldiers "answered the call" because they thought slavery was wrong, they were still being used as a tool for that.
It's called a Democratic-Republic, we're far from perfect and people -- especially soldiers -- are used as political tools they would normally not as a citizen.
But serving in the military is not about being a citizen, it's about being a tool for the citizen, who is elected, as long as it does not go against the Constitution and rule of law of the nation.

The Civil War is a great lesson most never learn about, because it's taught from the standpoint of slavery.
Slavery was just the major catalyst, the real lesson is in the blame, grandstanding and selfish interests of governments on both sides.
It is a great lesson in lack of compromises, self-reflection, self-realization and the general interest of working together, instead of standing behind partial values and saying, "I'm right, you're wrong."

And is it really necessary to tack on "African" to them? It implies they hold some sort of allegiance to a continent 98% of them have probably never been to and would more than likely never want to live in. I've been in enough countries in Africa to say that even during the period of slavery in this country, they probably had it better than a lot of the people in Africa had then and the biggest difference is things haven't improved for them in Africa. So as a "European"-American, I'm pretty sick of all the people who put American as second, as if they want to distance themselves from that part of their heritage.

It depends on how they use it.
I'm an Irish-American, I have some heritage that is inherent to my being, and it shows up.
At the same time, I'm the same American as anyone else here, with the same rights, opportunities and chance at failure.

As for Canada... well, I don't even know how you can compare that to America. Like someone else said... apples and footballs.

Canada comes from the greater commonwealth of the UK, and is not comparable in many ways.
Canada has also earned it's distinction from the US, having repelled no less than two US invasions.

Those sacred documents have been the basis for everything that has kept this country together. Yeah, they might have been written in a time when "all men are created equally" was almost hypocritical, but look what that document has allowed this country to evolve into. On any given day people in this country have far more rights than almost any other person on the planet. Yes, a lot of blood has been spilled to get to this point, but considering the positive changes that have resulted, it wasn't in vain.

"All men are created equal" is always hypocritical, and can be disregarded if you wish.
Or you can just take the narrow intent, and make it wider, and realize the message was right, the delivery was wrong.

But in reality, while the Declaration of Independent is about some "moral high ground" of "All men are created equal," the Constitution is about a "pefect union."
In fact, it was because of this that imperfect men actually overlooked the real need for a Bill of Rights, something the people (and their elected state officials) reminded them of.
Because government is never perfect, which is why you need balances so different views of different people purposely conflict.

Legislative (least power, most representation, all power to creates law) against Executive against Judicial (most power, least representation, no power to create laws).

Federal (single, concentrated, over-ruling power, farthest removed from the people, authority is exclusive by default and must be explicitly granted) against State (distributed, closer to the people but still representative, authority is inclusive by default over the federal) and local (most direct and accountable to the people).

I don't know why I keep trying to rebut here... it's pretty obvious the opinions on this board are polar and nobody is going to change anyone's minds... which is why if you, Fox, want to change the world, you probably need to try doing it someplace other than a porn forum. I just can't foresee the history books stating "The changes in this country all started with one man on an internet porn site".

No, if Fox wants to change the world via the US his way, he has three choices ...
1) Learn American civics and how you can change the US, otherwise everything he says is an utter joke
2) Lead a revolt in the US and establish a "better" in Fox's view (subjective) government of, by and for the people
3) Get other countries to enact their will on the US (I assume Fox can make countless justification arguments)

But let's be fair to Fox, there are countless other people here who don't have the faintest clue about our civics.
Granted, most don't think they are optional like Fox, and we all have our arguments over interpretation, but we all miss many things at times.
Viewpoints, justifications, excuses are subjective, even mine -- but due process with supermajorities, while not objective, are more in the pursuit of objectivity, as it forces reflection and broad agreeance.

Simple majorities have been the way dictators come to power.

Ideally they target unintellectual populations, where simple "the rich are bad, you are good and deserve their money" rules supreme.
Wealthy (not rich) people don't make me work, my own ethic does, and I refuse to let any wealthy person tell me what to do with my life, because it's my life.
Don't like your job? Quit! Can't quit? That's your choice. Start a business, make something of yourself, quit blaming others.

Sorry, true.