Why are liberals always so against the US constitution?

Why are liberals always so against the US constitution?

>The constitution is old. It wasn't written for our time.

Ah yes, but the writings of Francis Bacon on scientific experimentation as a means of gaining knowledge is more applicable than ever.


Donald Trump makes one fucking comment about the second amendment and liberals lose their fucking minds.

I wonder what the founding fathers would have thought about Mr. Trump's statement....

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

Idk man seems pretty unclear....

Because the Constitution gives the people too much freedom to do things they don't want them to do. They have to control peoples lives and how they think and take their money.

Then they would go and fall back on the first amendment when it suits them while wanting to trample it to dust.

They don't always dislike it. Thing is they have to always have a frontier and that frontier is always leftwards...you can only go so far before the constitution is a hindrance. Jews factor into this pretty heavily as well.

To be fair, liberals have a point that the constitution is outdated. The Founding Fathers never invisioned free niggers roaming major cities with the right to bear arms.

the constitution is literally hitler

>The Founding Fathers never invisioned free niggers roaming major cities

Yes they did. Jefferson talks about it explicitly. He imagined that one day they would be freed.

Did Jefferson imagine they'd have guns and turn inner cities into warzones?

Remember, when they wrote the constitution and the 2nd amendment, the secret unwritten words at the end of it was (.....only for whites lol....)

Blacks were not included in buying guns, voting, etc etc etc...

I think the issue isn't so much race as it is that not everyone is armed.

If everyone were armed, there would be a greater deterrent against gang violence. You're not going to want to try to off your enemy if some random bystander is going to blow you away.

>A well regulated militia being necessary for the defense &tc
>well regulated
>regulated

I'm sorry , you were saying something about the immutabiity of the Constitution?

"You beleive science therefore: all laws , the same forever."
Nah.

you're right, niggers shouldn't have guns. It kinda made me think...

Let's clarify the operative clause of that sentence, then.

>The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
>right of the people . . . shall not be infringed
>THE PEOPLE . . . SHALL NOT

>The constitution is old. It wasn't written for our time.


The best thing to do when liberals say this is to ask them to honestly describe a time in the past when they would acknowledge that the 2A was vital enough that it be enshrined in the Constitution.

If they can't come up with a reason why people in the 1700s would have needed the 2A (or they come up with a bullshit thing like 'they needed their guns to defend themselves from bears on their farms'), then it's obvious that they're full of shit and think that the 2A was never important or should have existed.

that dude must have fucked that kid, creepy

Even if that is your interpretation.....

A well regulated militia is part one of that sentence....

Did you forget the rest?

"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."

Hmm so you're saying that we need a well regulated militia... but how do you have a militia if the people are not armed?

Oh not to mention the fact that they were trying to regulate the militia to keep it from growing into a tyrannical army, not keep people from owning firearms.

Why do I think they didn't want to restrict people from owning firearms?

Oh let me remind you again.... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

Liberals couldn't stop taking about the constitutive when Khan used it for a prop that had nothing to do with what he was ranting about. Trump makes a comment that they are interpreting to be talking about what the second amendment was SPECIFICALLY written for and now the constitution is back to being vilified.

You make the all too common (and often fatal) mistake of assuming that the average black person is capable of envisioning the consequences of their actions and will moderate their behavior accordingly.

Forward thinking is a trait of those with higher IQ. Another trait of high IQ individuals is the mistaken assumption that those of low IQ are capable of the same level of reasoning as themselves (Dunning-Kruger effect).

Autocorrect typos

Because they are communist/socialists and the constitution was written specifically to prevent that type of government

You need better reading comprehension. The point is that just because an idea is old, doesn't mean it's useless.

So if I wrote fanfic about Deadpool and My Little Pony having sex and mailed it to a friend, that would be ratified as law? Ben Franlklin wrote a paper on farting. Is that canon law?
Is that your scholarly opinion after much deliberation?
Nice try, though.bro.

My argument is that the Const. provides for regulation.
Your argument: "Takin away muh guns!'
How is regulation ( like for alcohol, cars, most property) anti- Cibstitutional?
I am fine we being in dufferent sides of the issue.
I don't understand why conservatives claim we don't cafe about the Const. and falsely equivocate regulation with banning and confiscation.
Itsike all your arguments are lies. Sorry, I know that's how you feel about us.
Maybe one day you will get your fantasy of killing everyone you
don't like. Have fun adjusting that to your 'Christian' values, cheek- turner.

Conservatives hate freedom of speech and want to censor the press, you want to make this country a Xtian theocracy despite the Seperation Clause and you would bring back slavery if you could, so don't act so high and mighty.

Regulation that would infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not permitted.

Regulations which do not infringe are welcome. Unfortunately leftists are not interested in these kind of regulations.

They don't want you armed when the great chimpout comes

Because you don't give your slaves rights

>with banning and confiscation.
It doesn't say shall not be banned or confiscated
It says shall not be infringed
Also there are plenty of guns that are banned
>Conservatives hate freedom of speech and want to censor the press,
Liberals are the ones trying to overturn Citizens United

To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

James Madison-Federalist 46

A well regulated breakfast etc...

TL:DR

Madison, a Federalist faggot, explains that "militia" is the people and not the State. Also claims these armed citizens could repel the tyranny of domestic gov't