Seventh Circuit Judge says the US Constitution, Bill of Rights have "no value"; "out-dated"

[Hoetaku]

[QUOTE=Starpluck;50610289]He is right. The Constitution came from a different time and is inapplicable today. That would be like saying the Old Testament should be codified and is relevant today because the "bible says it must be relevant forever."[/QUOTE]
Let me defeat your entire "argument" with a quote from star wars: "Only a Sith deals in absolutes".

[Mr. Scorpio]

[QUOTE=space1;50615061]Let me defeat your entire "argument" with a quote from star wars: "Only a Sith deals in absolutes".[/QUOTE]

but that's an absolute statement

[Hoetaku]

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;50615065]but that's an absolute statement[/QUOTE]

The beautiful irony here is that the statement itself is proof that not everything is absolute in that it isn't an absolute statement.

[Ganerumo]

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50610816]Except it's not.

That is an offensive hyberbole that people who want to toss the whole thing out project their opponents as.

It's completely untrue.[/QUOTE]

Then explain why the constitution is used so vehemently as the end-all-be-all argument for gun rights.

The actual reasoning behind gun rights set aside, there is an alarming amount of people who will cite the constitution as the ultimate proof of how gun rights should be and should remain, with the implication that it being written in the constitution equals to complete safety for the concept.

[Kigen]

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;50615704]Then explain why the constitution is used so vehemently as the end-all-be-all argument for gun rights.

The actual reasoning behind gun rights set aside, there is an alarming amount of people who will cite the constitution as the ultimate proof of how gun rights should be and should remain, with the implication that it being written in the constitution equals to complete safety for the concept.[/QUOTE]

Its used when people try to propose legislation without addressing the supreme law of the land. If they proposed an amendment to the Constitution then that'd be different.

But also, an underlying concept the founding fathers of the country were going with is that everything in the bill of rights is inalienable. Meaning the bill of rights does not grant the right, it just protects it from the government's interference.

[catbarf]

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;50615704]Then explain why the constitution is used so vehemently as the end-all-be-all argument for gun rights.[/QUOTE]

Lemme repost what I wrote in the Hawaii thread:

The Constitution is explicitly designed to characterize the nature and limitations of the federal government. It does not just lay out what the government can do; the Bill of Rights lays out what the government can't do. It defines the system of checks and balances that underlie our governmental system, and it establishes the principle by which all other laws are based.

The First Amendment, for example, is not just one law on the books saying that printing presses shouldn't be restricted. It firmly establishes that the government cannot restrict the principle of free speech and that it must respect the rights of all individuals to speak their minds even in ways critical of the government. While we may occasionally stumble in this regard (at one time sedition was illegal), as a guiding principle the First Amendment is a bedrock of our society.

The Constitution isn't a sacred, untouchable document- that's why there are amendments. But it is the single most important document in our entire country, and that means that if you're going to overturn a guiding principle that has existed for over two centuries you better have a damn good reason for it. 'Technology isn't what it used to be' is not a good reason. 'Your dreams of rebelling against the government are ridiculous' is not a good reason. These arguments fundamentally miss the point- the Second Amendment is not about muskets and it's not about Red Dawn. It's about the fundamental principle that the people, not the state, guarantee the safety and security of the public.

Now, maybe that's due for a change. There seem to be a lot of people who feel that way, and if the founding fathers were here today they'd probably be shocked at how big the federal government has grown, and how different modern American society is from how it was in the 18th century. But if that's going to be how it goes, it has to be done through the legislature as a proper amendment to the Constitution, not as some politician or judge or pundit deciding they don't like the laws on the books and ignoring them. Changing the law through the proper legislative process is one thing, outright ignoring it through judicial or executive fiat is quite another.

Put another way: Gun owners don't cling to the Constitution as a sacred, infallible document. They hold the Constitution as a legally-binding, culturally-important document that can't be simply ignored if it happens to conflict with your political ideals.

[BelatedGamer]

[QUOTE=XenArtifact;50611700]says the person that lives in a fucking country that plays off a religious image.[/QUOTE]

Oh for fucks sake, I'm so goddamn tired of seeing this bullshit strawman "argument" on every goddamn political thread.

The views of his government may not necessarily align 100% with his own views, or [I]at all[/I], and the only reason you bring up the "well [I]your[/I] government is [I]also[/I] shit" card is because you disagree without having a [B]single[/B] actual opinion that you can personally explain, and all it shows is that you either don't know what you're talking about or have absolutely no faith at all in what you allegedly support.

If you had a real argument, you would have presented it.

Jesus christ. I'm not siding with anyone here, but this non-argument really grinds my gears, man.

[Edit]

But for the rest of you guys, seriously good work. I'm not sure where I stand on this yet, but it's been a fascinating read so far.