The US constitution is the very foundation of the United States. To suggest that it is obsolete is to suggest that the US govt, which derives its powers from that same constitution is also obsolete. Would you really want to live in a country where every state decided which parts of the constitution it wanted to follow and which parts it just chose to ignore, because that governor and state legislature decided that it no longer applied? What if each new administration that came into office decided to re-interpret the constitution in a way that benefitted their idealogy? While you might like some of their practices, you might not like most of them at some point. You might agree with them ignoring the 2nd amendment, but once they started ignoring the 4th amendment and began searching indivduals on the street randomly..or worse came into your home looking for weapons and drugs, would that also be okay? See once you allow any govt body to take away constitutional rights in exchange for the false promise of security, then they will not stop at the 2nd amendment. Different administrations rather they be at the state level or the federal level will see the Bill or Rights as dated, and not relevant in the modern era of computers and the internet. Once the precedent is set that obeying the Bill of Rights is optional, you invite the complete destruction of civil liberties...over time. The reason that the Bill or Rights and the 2nd amendment were written into the US constitution is because, some governments have demonstrated throughout human history to have performed some shocking and indeed savage acts upon their own citizens. Remember, governments are made up of people and people can be good or bad...just like governments. The problem is that governments wield tremendous power. That power left unchecked is a very, very dangerous thing...human history has taught us that much. Human history has also taught us that ultimately those with the guns make the rules and here in the United States its the people, the citizens, that have the most guns.
once they started ignoring the 4th amendment and began searching indivduals on the street randomly..or worse came into your home looking for weapons and drugs, They do this on boats. search and board your boat in the interest of safety looking for weapons and drugs. I don't know how they get away with this.
One of the things I like about you Lucrum is your ability to come right to the point. You're a master of clever putdowns, often deserved by the way, without stooping to personal insult -- usually. It is a too rare quality nowadays, and I admire it! (I'm serious, not joking.) What I meant by obsolescence in the second amendment, just to clarify, was the problems arising from the change in the meaning of "arms" from the 18th century to the 21st century. Hence, if one were to draft a second amendment today one would not use precisely the same words. That's where obsolescence creeps in. It's unavoidable in a 200+ year old document. I am strong believer in personal freedom and the right to own and "bear" firearms. (The word bear and bearing had different connotations in the 18th century. Today bearing is simply a straight forward participle of bear. Obsolescent does not mean obsolete.)
Just a fine point here Trader, assuming your post was referring to mine where I mentioned obsolescence in the Constitution. I did not say obsolete!; though in another few centuries it could become so.
Many of those who posted in this thread and indeed many NRA members may be interested in supporting this organization. I do. www.BORDC.org
Piezoe is a fool. The Constitution and our system of "Checks and Balances" were not about "farmers, muskets, or modern things"... they were/are about "the nature of power-hungry men and governments".... as applicable today as when drafted.
Here is just a simple question for you Scat. The U.S. Constitution was drafted, dreamed up --whatever term you want to use-- by an elite, wealthy, powerful small fraction of the colonial American population. What do you suppose their main interests were? Would it be to protect a fledgling federation from men like themselves, or would it be to consolidate and preserve their property, power and authority, and that of others like them?