Disingenuous "Be strong" and prayers

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I'm sorry, Moby and Moochie, but I'm with Senex on this one. I'm for tighter gun control but not at the expense of my Constitution.

And for your information, our Constitution is brilliant both because of the principles it upholds and the provisions for the future.

That's why it's lasted for three centuries and all of yours...have not

 

[Senex]

I asked

Originally Posted by Senex
More people die in Darfur, Iraq/other places harder to spell everyday. Why do people in Australia care so much about this occasion?

Mobyseven answered

Because as far as I'm aware, Australia still holds the record for the largest one-man gun massacre. Not a record we're particularly proud of, but by the same token not one we'd like to see surpassed.

I don't buy this as a record. I'm certain many sadistic individual soldiers mowed down hundreds of Chinese civilians in the late 1930's or early 1940's in a day (far beating your record) and many German soldiers shot down even more Jewish people during this same time period with one gun in an hour (again, surpassing your numbers). Children with guns in Africa often have at least challenged the numbers you point to. The day after those 30+ students died in Virginia 130+ people in Iraq died in car bombs. It seems to me you pick and choose the strangers you wish to mourn. Your massacre doesn't make this any clearer to me.

The Constitution is not some divine scripture. It is a legal document that reflects the time it was written in. But the times are changing, and there are systems in place that allow you to make alterations to the Constitution.

If you knew about the American constitution you would realize that it was so statistically improbable a document that could have been written at that time period that if you deprive it of 'divine' status then you make 'divine' a word that has no meaning.

The Constitution was never meant to be a static document - hell, that goes against the very idea of democracy. It is certainly very difficult to alter, but the provisions are there for a reason.

I would, if I were you, not treat an antique legal document in the same way as a fundamentalist treats their King James Version...it is, shall we say, somewhat disturbing.

Calling the American Constitution antique shows me that I need not argue with you any more. Even your life is better because of this antique document my friend. The improbability of the brilliant people who founded this country being together in power at the same time makes me proud to be a citizen of the US.

EeneyMinnieMoe

I'm sorry, Moby and Moochie, but I'm with Senex on this one. I'm for tighter gun control but not at the expense of my Constitution.

And for your information, our Constitution is brilliant both because of the principles it upholds and the provisions for the future.

That's why it's lasted for three centuries and all of yours...have not

Foreigners

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

High five, Senex. Well said.

You know, Bill Maher said this time and time again on both his shows after the trajedy and I'll say it again cause I agree with him: why do we pick and choose trajedies?! Americans and everyone else. Just going by the numbers, more people die every day in Iraq.

To quote Bill, "Thirty-two dead in Iraq is a good day."

Is it just that they're American? And not Iraqi?

 

[Mobyseven]

I'm sorry, Moby and Moochie, but I'm with Senex on this one. I'm for tighter gun control but not at the expense of my Constitution.

And for your information, our Constitution is brilliant both because of the principles it upholds and the provisions for the future.

That's why it's lasted for three centuries and all of yours...have not

Eeney...you're kidding, right? "...at the expense of [your] Constitution..."???

Why do you think that there are provisions IN the Constitution to CHANGE the Constitution? They aren't just there to look pretty - they're there because the people who drafted the Constitution knew that this wouldn't always be the same, that at some point in the future it may be necessary to change the Constitution.

I'm not saying, 'Gee, the US Constitution is a load of bollocks,' I'm pointing out that this "constitutional fanaticism" re not changing the Constitution completely goes against the Constitution itself!

Oh, and by the way - regarding your jab at the end: Both Moochie and I are Melbournites: Australian. Claiming superiority because your Constitution has lasted "three centuries" is both presumptuous and wrong.

Just because Australia has not been around for three centuries does not mean that we will have to adopt a new constitution before those three centuries are up. Things are going fine here, thank you very much.

And just so you know, the US Constitution has not been around for anywhere near three centuries. At the moment it's been in existance close to 220 years - lets get our facts right about the country you know and love, shall we?

Also, the idea of an unchanging Constitution is ridiculous when you realise that the part of the Consitution granting the 'right to bear arms' is itself an amendment to the US Constitution! So far there have been twenty-seven amendments to the US Constitution (from 1791 to 1992), and the right to bear arms is the second of those amendments.

In other words - if the Constitution was never meant to be changed, you wouldn't have the right to bear arms to begin with!

I don't buy this as a record. I'm certain many sadistic individual soldiers mowed down hundreds of Chinese civilians in the late 1930's or early 1940's in a day (far beating your record) and many German soldiers shot down even more Jewish people during this same time period with one gun in an hour (again, surpassing your numbers). Children with guns in Africa often have at least challenged the numbers you point to. The day after those 30+ students died in Virginia 130+ people in Iraq died in car bombs. It seems to me you pick and choose the strangers you wish to mourn. Your massacre doesn't make this any clearer to me.

Read what I said. One person, with guns. Not car bombs or similar. Drawing a comparison to child soldiers or the military is ridiculous: The people you speak of were not 'one person' alone, but were working as part of a group.

Don't try to take the 'moral high ground' by telling me that I am picking and choosing who I shall mourn. War is a horrible thing, and atrocities are committed, don't think I don't know this.

If you can find a report of ONE PERSON, ACTING ALONE who has killed more people WITH GUNS in ONE SHOOTING than the Port Arthur Massacre, I will withdraw my statement that it remains the biggest one man gun massacre in history. If all you have, however, is an uncorroborated "I'm certain..." then I would suggest that maybe you haven't done your research.

If you knew about the American constitution you would realize that it was so statistically improbable a document that could have been written at that time period that if you deprive it of 'divine' status then you make 'divine' a word that has no meaning.

divine (comparative more divine, superlative most divine)

1. of or pertaining to a god
2. eternal, holy, or otherwise supernatural.
3. of superhuman or surpassing excellence
4. beautiful, heavenly
   

I would humbly suggest your understanding of the word 'divine' is a little bit off.

The Constitution is a legal document. It is an IMPORTANT legal document, to be sure, but it is none-the-less a legal document, in which provisions were made for the alteration of the document, should the need arise!

Calling the American Constitution antique shows me that I need not argue with you any more. Even your life is better because of this antique document my friend. The improbability of the brilliant people who founded this country being together in power at the same time makes me proud to be a citizen of the US.

I meant antique in the sense of it being 'old'...if you took it any other way, I apologise. If you're trying to say that it is not old...well, then I don't know what to say.

Being an Australian citizen I'd say that the American Constitution has very little of a day-to-day effect on my life.

If you are not in favour of gun control, that is your opinion. But I would suggest that you find a better justification for your opinion than just, "You can't mess with the Constitution."

To summarise again why this is:

• The Constitution contains within it the provisions for amending the Constitution;
• The 'right to bear arms' is itself an amendment to the Constitution (i.e. If you the Constitution was never meant to be changed then you wouldn't have the 'right to bear arms' in the first place); and,
• The second amendment was drafted at a time when it would have been quite sensible for the citizens to have firearms, 'just in case' anything should happen. With a professional military force, this is no longer a necessary or sensible idea.

Peace Out

Mobyseven

 

[Moochie]

I'm sorry, Moby and Moochie, but I'm with Senex on this one. I'm for tighter gun control but not at the expense of my Constitution.

And for your information, our Constitution is brilliant both because of the principles it upholds and the provisions for the future.

That's why it's lasted for three centuries and all of yours...have not

Yeah, and the bible's lasted... how many centuries?

M.

 

[Senex]

Also, the idea of an unchanging Constitution is ridiculous when you realise that the part of the Consitution granting the 'right to bear arms' is itself an amendment to the US Constitution! So far there have been twenty-seven amendments to the US Constitution (from 1791 to 1992), and the right to bear arms is the second of those amendments.

In other words - if the Constitution was never meant to be changed, you wouldn't have the right to bear arms to begin with!

The first ten amendments to the American Constitution are commonly referred to as "The Bill of Rights." These amendments were added to our Constitution before the document was ratified. These ten amendments are different to subsequent amendments in that they were not voted on as changes to the existing document. If the document was frozen on the day it was ratified our right to bear arms will still be with us.

I would humbly suggest your understanding of the word 'divine' is a little bit off.

Originally Posted by Wiktionary
divine (comparative more divine, superlative most divine)

1) of or pertaining to a god
2) eternal, holy, or otherwise supernatural.
3) of superhuman or surpassing excellence
4) beautiful, heavenly

I think choice #3 fits perfectly.

Being an Australian citizen I'd say that the American Constitution has very little of a day-to-day effect on my life.

The Queen of England sailed down herself around 1901 to sign it for you into law didn't she? hehehe... we kicked that monarchy out in the 18th century over here -- paving the way for wannabe rascals like yourselves to follow. BTW - you have references to monarchy and sucession to the throne still in that more antique sounding document than our much older one does.

Darnell11: Senex, No, David Blane is a magician; it's clearly an illusion. Simon Cowell is not a magician, and American Idol has no reason to create illusions on the show. I doubt they care about politics. Really, a stupid comparison. It's good to be skeptic, but you're going a little too far.

My David Blaine comparison was made because Blaine once used a certain levitation technique on a national TV program. Without giving away any secrets, the method he used on the street prohibits his audience from seeing two feet of space between the bottom of his feet and the sidewalk. Blaine did the trick for the street audience and then edited in a television shot of himself several feet off the ground which he must have used a crane for on a different day with no audience -- an unethical thing in my opinion.

It's possible AI did a similar, later that day, edit (unlikely, but it doesn't matter because my point was the contestent mentioned VT to help gain votes, in my opinion, and I thought that was wrong.

Moochie:
Good post, Moby. Evidently Senex has been trying to beguile me with bogus references to Aussie "culture," but it hasn't worked.

You're beguiled, come on, admit it.

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Across three centuries, I meant.

You missed my point- the significance of the Constitution lasting 200 plus years is that it's the foundation a system of government still functoning more than two centuries later, which among other things, is the oldest democracy in the world.

 

[Moochie]

You're beguiled, come on, admit it.

Yeah, but only a little bit, and not while anyone was looking.

M.

 

[Mobyseven]

The first ten amendments to the American Constitution are commonly referred to as "The Bill of Rights." These amendments were added to our Constitution before the document was ratified. These ten amendments are different to subsequent amendments in that they were not voted on as changes to the existing document. If the document was frozen on the day it was ratified our right to bear arms will still be with us.

June 21, 1788: United States Contitution ratified.

March 4, 1789: Government under the Constitution began.

September, 1789: First twelve amendments to the Constitution proposed by Congress. Numbers 3-12 were the Bill of Rights.

Circa December, 1791: Bill of Rights was ratified and became part of the Constitution.

Senex, with all due respect, what you have said is entirely wrong. Were the United States Constitution to have been frozen on the day it was ratified, you would most certainly not have the right to bear arms.

3) of superhuman or surpassing excellence

I think choice #3 fits perfectly.

So you don't think the Consititution should ever be changed in any way?

Bollocks, it is a legal document, with real, legal ramifications. Let's take a look at how the USA would be a different place if the Constitution were frozen at the moment of ratification:

• No freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly and freedom of petition (First Amendment);
• No right to bear arms (Second Amendment);
• No protection from searches, arrests, and seizures of property without a warrant or a "probable cause" to believe a crime has been committed (Fouth Amendment);
• No prohibition against double jeopardy and punishment without due process of law (Fifth Amendment);
• No guarantee of a speedy public trial for criminal offenses, no requirement of trial by a jury, no right to legal counsel for the accused, no right for the accused to know the charges against him/her (Sixth Amendment);
• No Miranda rights (Fifth + Sixth Amendments); and,
• No prohibition on excessive bail or fines. No prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment (Eighth Amendment);
  

And that is just from the Bill of Rights. If we continue onto some of the other amendments that have been passed (as recently as 1992) America becomes an even more different place to live. Lets have a look:

• No prohibition on slavery (Thirteenth Amendment);
• No prohibition on preventing citizens from voting based on colour or race (Fifteenth Amendment);
• No income tax (Sixteenth Amendment);
• There would have been no Prohibition (Eighteenth Amendement), which could never have been repealed (Twenty-First Amendment);
• No prohibition on preventing citizens from voting based on gender (Nineteenth Amendment);
• The POTUS would not be limited to two terms in office (Twenty-Second Amendment);
• No prohibition on preventing citizens from voting based on their tax-payer status (Twenty-Fourth Amendment);
• No prohibition on preventing citizens over the age of eighteen from voting based on their age (Twenty-Sixth Amendment); and,
• No limits on congressional pay rises (Twenty-Seventh Amendment).
  

So then, if your Constitution is so 'divine', why has it been amended so many times? And why could the second amendment not be repealed?

The second amendment is from a time when the citizens bearing arms was a part of having, "A well regulated Militia, [...] necessary to the security of a free State," was relevant. The USA, now protected by arguably the most powerful military force in the world, no longer requires a citizen based fighting force, as it did back then.

The Queen of England sailed down herself around 1901 to sign it for you into law didn't she?

...no.

She had to provide royal assent to the act, just like she would any other act of parliament. She didn't have to do it in Australia though.

hehehe... we kicked that monarchy out in the 18th century over here -- paving the way for wannabe rascals like yourselves to follow.

Congratulations on your inability to diplomatically settle your differences with the UK. Honestly, if I thought all Americans were as arrogant as you I'd have no trouble imagining why most of the world seems to hate you - luckily, I know better.

If you take a look at the Australian Constitution, you'll notice that it doesn't base itself on the US Constitution. "Wannabe rascals" indeed...

BTW - you have references to monarchy and sucession to the throne still in that more antique sounding document than our much older one does.

So? What exactly would you expect to find in the Australian Constitution, a discourse on beer?

Besides which, as wonderful a derail you attempt at attacking the Australian Constitution was, I'd like to point out that we're talking about the US Constitution here...I for one am not claiming perfection in the Constitution of my country, as you are doing.

 

[Mobyseven]

Across three centuries, I meant.

I did gather that you might have meant that...but I'm a compulsive nit-picker...

You missed my point- the significance of the Constitution lasting 200 plus years is that it's the foundation a system of government still functoning more than two centuries later, which among other things, is the oldest democracy in the world.

So?

You act as though the Constitution has never been amended - noone here is suggesting that you amend any part of the Constitution that relates to the function of government or changes the principles of democracy on which the Constitution is based.

The Second Amendment (once again, note that this was itself an amendment to the original document) states that:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As the USA now has a professional military force to protect it, does it really need a "well regulated Militia" of citizens with guns anymore?

 

[Senex]

Besides which, as wonderful a derail you attempt at attacking the Australian Constitution was, I'd like to point out that we're talking about the US Constitution here...I for one am not claiming perfection in the Constitution of my country, as you are doing.

Mobyseven, as much as I know about the American Bill of Rights and the Constitution I no longer wish to argue this point any more than I wish to continue mentioning the daily car bomb death toll in Iraq. The first isn't interesting to most people and the second is distasteful. Let's let this thread die unless someone wants to discuss the on-topic issue of disingenuous best wishes to victims.

 

[Moochie]

Mobyseven, as much as I know about the American Bill of Rights and the Constitution I no longer wish to argue this point any more than I wish to continue mentioning the daily car bomb death toll in Iraq. The first isn't interesting to most people and the second is distasteful. Let's let this thread die unless someone wants to discuss the on-topic issue of disingenuous best wishes to victims.

And let's not overlook "noone" for "no one." Yecch!

M.

 

[Senex]

And let's not overlook "noone" for "no one." Yecch!

M.

Yeah! You tell him, he thinks he has nothing to learn from anyone, yet an American

 

[Moochie]

Spill a little beer on your keyboard and the space bar sticks and the rascals come out and make fun.

It's been my experience that the people who point such things out are the next to make mistakes

Typos? I make them all the time (I'm a three-fingered typist), but since Firefox has a running spell-checker, I have no real excuse to let them stand.

The substitution of "noone" for "no one" is a personal gripe. It's seldom a typo.

M.

 

[Senex]

Typos? I make them all the time (I'm a three-fingered typist), but since Firefox has a running spell-checker, I have no real excuse to let them stand.

The substitution of "noone" for "no one" is a personal gripe. It's seldom a typo.

M.

You act as though the Constitution has never been amended - noone here is suggesting that you amend any part of the Constitution that relates to the function of government or changes the principles of democracy on which the Constitution is based.

Hehehehe... I didn't wite this. It's one of those commies you come across on-line now and them. Maybe I'll report him

 

[Moochie]

Hehehehe... I didn't wite this. It's one of those commies you come across on-line now and them. Maybe I'll report him

Oh, you thought my comment was aimed at you? Silly sausage.

M.

 

[Mobyseven]

Mobyseven, as much as I know about the American Bill of Rights and the Constitution I no longer wish to argue this point any more than I wish to continue mentioning the daily car bomb death toll in Iraq. The first isn't interesting to most people and the second is distasteful. Let's let this thread die unless someone wants to discuss the on-topic issue of disingenuous best wishes to victims.

We can split the topic to another thread, if you'd prefer. I, personally, was hoping for some sort of a reply to the points I raised, but if you'd rather not then I suppose we can let it die...

And let's not overlook "noone" for "no one." Yecch!

M.

D'oh!!! "noone" is one of my pet hates! Can't believe I let that one slip through the ranks...

 

[Senex]

We can split the topic to another thread, if you'd prefer. I, personally, was hoping for some sort of a reply to the points I raised, but if you'd rather not then I suppose we can let it die...



D'oh!!! "noone" is one of my pet hates! Can't believe I let that one slip through the ranks...

You're right. You deserve a reply and we can do it in another place that is more appropriate. It's 8PM god's time but I will post a fair thread on "The Latest Commentary Issues" forum before you awake tomorrow. I'm self -conscious about having a thread everyone rolls their eyes when they see at the top of the page they could care less about. Fewer people post on that forum.

Let's impose on those poor readers.

 

[Piggy]

Is "Drinking the koolaid" actually a figure of speech in the States?

Yes. "Drank the Kool-Aid" is a figure of speech for someone who has accepted an ideology and will follow it come what may.

 

[Mobyseven]

You're right. You deserve a reply and we can do it in another place that is more appropriate. It's 8PM god's time but I will post a fair thread on "The Latest Commentary Issues" forum before you awake tomorrow. I'm self -conscious about having a thread everyone rolls their eyes when they see at the top of the page they could care less about. Fewer people post on that forum.

Let's impose on those poor readers.

Haha...poor them. Many thanks by the way...may sound odd, but this is a subject that interests me.

I can't help but feel it will be moved to the politics subforum though...

Sleep well...I should point out that as it's only 10.30am here I will likely see your reply before the day is out!

Peace Out

Mobyseven


(You may now return to your scheduled programming.)