Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
The most I can extract from your obtuse responses is, you believe the first 26 amendments have brought the Constitution into a state of perfection; any future amendments would diminish it.
Then it's obvious that you didn't read what I wrote. I said that tampering with the current Constitution will diminish it. I never once said that an amendment would diminish anything (strawman #1) -- in fact I made quite an effort to get this point across and even made a followup post to drive said point home, which you even quoted, but unsurprisingly it still managed to fly right past you. You also say that I said that the Constitution is perfect (strawman #2): I never said this. The 11th and 16th Amendments are evidence that it's far from perfect. What I said that it shouldn't be tampered with, and gave my reason why.
Not only is this a bizarre, asinine conclusion,
It is, isn't it? That's because it's the same strawman (#3) I was telling you not to bother dragging out but you did anyway. I should have known that I'd have to break this down Barney-style so here it goes:
The 11th Amendment: Nobody knows what the hell this means, but it's something about suing the entire state if the state lets you. Or not. I'll be honest, I don't know how to classify this one but to be charitable I'll say that it deprives a right.
The 12th Amendment: The Electoral College. Considered insidious and oppressive by the losing party of every presidential election, subject to change to support when they win. No restrictions of freedom or rights here despite what the losing party says.
The 13th Amendment: Abolition of slavery. Expands upon/guarantee of rights and freedom.
The 14th Amendment: Civil Rights. Expands upon/Guarantee of rights and freedom.
The 15th Amendment: Black Suffrage, another expansion upon/guarantee of rights and freedom.
The 16th Amendment: Income Tax, further proof that nothing is perfect -- but no restrictions of freedom or rights here.
The 17th Amendment: States now have two more slimy politicians to suffer and vote themselves pay raises. But, again -- no restrictions of freedom or rights here.
The 18th Amendment: Prohibition of Liquor, and the first (and only) amendment to set in place to restrict freedom. 31 million Americans immediately stop drinking, except for the 31 million Americans who didn't stop drinking.
The 19th Amendment: Women's Suffrage, a expansion upon/guarantee of rights and freedom.
The 20th Amendment: Terms of office for the President and VP. No restriction of freedom or rights here.
The 21st Amendment: The one amendment that restricted freedom is itself restricted.
The 22nd Amendment: Term limits for the President. No restriction of freedom or rights here.
The 23rd Amendment: Washington, DC gets too big for its britches, thinks it's better than every other city, gets its own reps. If there's a restriction of freedom or rights here then I don't see it, but I'm sure Baltimore isn't happy about this one bit.
The 24th Amendment: Abolition of Poll Taxes, an expansion upon/guarantee of rights and freedom.
The 25th Amendment: Presidential succession. No restriction of rights and freedom.
The 26th Amendment: If 18 year olds can die for their country, they can vote. But not drink. Unless you're in the Marines. And only when the CO authorizes it. (This is true btw, dunno about the other branches of the service.) A expansion upon/guarantee of rights and freedom.
The 27th Amendment: Congressional pay raises. No restriction of rights or freedom here.
# of amendments which expand upon/guarantee a right or freedom: 6
# of amendments which curtail a right/freedom:
21
# of amendments that have nothing to do with curtailing rights/freedoms: 8
# of amendments that revoke a previous amendment that restricts a right/freedom: 1
# of amendments that establish an income tax: 1 (boo!)
Do you see the trend at work here? Do you now see why I don't have a problem with the 17 amendments as they are? Not all of them are agreeable, but you can't expect everything to turn out perfectly ideal. And if for some reason America comes across another reason to create another amendment that further expands upon our freedoms and/or limits government, I probably won't have a single problem with that either.
What I do have a problem with is anyone going in and tampering with what we've already set in place for the Constitution. I've bolded and italicized this because it's my main point. Your argument is that the Constitution should be easier to go back and change, and I've already stated why this is wrong and here it is again:
Why? Because it wouldn't be a Constitution if it were as elastic as you want it to be. Your criticisms of how it needs to be "updated" -- that is, its foundation altered, keeping with the topic of gun control here (and to curtail the inevitable sidetracking regarding human rights, suffrage, etc) -- is myopic, and the exact reason why the authors of it made it so difficult to alter. What you perceive as "keeping with the times" is what they rightly understood as "here we go again." There's nothing new under the sun in other words, and an altering of the current constitution to "keep with the times" will have a detrimental effect on itself as a whole and the ideals that this country were originally founded on.
I would think that the reason why people like myself are so stubborn in regards to the Constitution and tampering with it would be plainly evident here, of all places. The tampering that you're advocating in regards to the 2nd Amendment is made with good intentions, I know -- but still, they're the same famous kind of good intentions that act as pavement to an undesirable end.