Michael Moore-"People act like Constitution was written by God"...disgusting or maybe he's right?
Space Invader
2012/07/25 22:09:49
|
|
|||||
|
98 votes
|
|
51% | |||
|
43 votes
|
|
23% | |||
|
24 votes
|
|
13% | |||
|
10 votes
|
|
5% | |||
|
16 votes
|
|
8% | |||
"I think, first of all this must seem odd to people in other countries
that we view our Constitution as if it was written by God himself. That
it was somehow, through some sort of divine intervention or whatever, it
was etched in stone like Moses and the tablets. And because what they
thought was right in 1776 to 1789, that is the way we have to live today
in the 21st century," Michael Moore said on the Tuesday night broadcast
of CNN's "Pier Morgan Tonight."
"I mean, we wouldn't go to a doctor and have him put leeches on us to
suck the blood out of us because that would cure us, that's what they
did, you know, a 150 years ago," Moore also said.
"We've kind of evolved," Moore said.
Moore continued: "So I think what -- it's a safe bet -- I think the
people who are -- the NRA and the so-called gun supporters. I think they
if they were intellectually honest and I think it's okay to use that
word. The other word. I think that they would admit the founding
fathers, when they said militia, they meant we got to be able to round
up all the farmers and the merchants and everybody, get your gun because
the British are coming back. They were afraid of that.
"They still were dealing with the world's largest power at the time when
we got our independence. Or when they said "the right to bear arms," I
think, you know, the arm back then was you could -- you could only fire
one shot at a time. You had a little -- a little ball bearing-like
bullet. You had to stuff it in the thing. Then do this. Gun powder. You
know, it took about 15 minutes before you could fire one shot. Now, if
the founding fathers could have looked into a crystal ball and seen
AK-47s and a Glock semiautomatic pistol, I got a feeling they would want
to leave a little note behind and probably tell us, you know, that's
not really what we mean when we say "bear arms."
"So I think that -- I think that most intelligent people would see that
it kind of makes sense, what they were thinking. I don't think that we
have to go back in their minds and all. And I wish that we would just
live in this century. I think they'd want us to do that. We've evolved
in other ways. We allowed women to vote. We decided that slavery was a
bad idea. You know, we've gotten rid of a lot of those bad ideas from
the founding fathers. This is probably one that is not necessarily a bad
idea but one that can easily be clarified with 21 century language."
that we view our Constitution as if it was written by God himself. That
it was somehow, through some sort of divine intervention or whatever, it
was etched in stone like Moses and the tablets. And because what they
thought was right in 1776 to 1789, that is the way we have to live today
in the 21st century," Michael Moore said on the Tuesday night broadcast
of CNN's "Pier Morgan Tonight."
"I mean, we wouldn't go to a doctor and have him put leeches on us to
suck the blood out of us because that would cure us, that's what they
did, you know, a 150 years ago," Moore also said.
"We've kind of evolved," Moore said.
Moore continued: "So I think what -- it's a safe bet -- I think the
people who are -- the NRA and the so-called gun supporters. I think they
if they were intellectually honest and I think it's okay to use that
word. The other word. I think that they would admit the founding
fathers, when they said militia, they meant we got to be able to round
up all the farmers and the merchants and everybody, get your gun because
the British are coming back. They were afraid of that.
"They still were dealing with the world's largest power at the time when
we got our independence. Or when they said "the right to bear arms," I
think, you know, the arm back then was you could -- you could only fire
one shot at a time. You had a little -- a little ball bearing-like
bullet. You had to stuff it in the thing. Then do this. Gun powder. You
know, it took about 15 minutes before you could fire one shot. Now, if
the founding fathers could have looked into a crystal ball and seen
AK-47s and a Glock semiautomatic pistol, I got a feeling they would want
to leave a little note behind and probably tell us, you know, that's
not really what we mean when we say "bear arms."
"So I think that -- I think that most intelligent people would see that
it kind of makes sense, what they were thinking. I don't think that we
have to go back in their minds and all. And I wish that we would just
live in this century. I think they'd want us to do that. We've evolved
in other ways. We allowed women to vote. We decided that slavery was a
bad idea. You know, we've gotten rid of a lot of those bad ideas from
the founding fathers. This is probably one that is not necessarily a bad
idea but one that can easily be clarified with 21 century language."
Top Opinion
-
WhereIsAmerica? ~PWCM~JLA 2012/07/25 22:14:40He's a disgusting Pig
+17Moore is a Communist bastard, the Constitution is about our freedom, and that jerk wants to wipe his ass with it. I can't stand him.
The Founding Fathers couldn’t possibly have foreseen the telegraph, let alone telephone, let alone cell phones. Nor high-speed web offset printing presses, let alone daisy wheel or dot-matrix printers (remember those?), let alone laser or inkjet printers, and desktop publishing software. Not to mention radio, television, and the Internet, let alone blogs and Facebook and Twitter.
So, maybe we should rethink that whole Freedom of Speech and of the Press thing? I mean, when they thought that up, they were thinking about maybe someone standing on a rooftop and shouting (Ye Olde Towne Crier), the Pony Express for mail, and manual massive-screw-type printing presses. They could never have imagined someone sitting down at a keyboard at home, let alone with a handheld touch device, and minutes later having their words read by thousands or even millions of people. They could never have imagined revolutions being synchronized all over a nation with precision via cell phones and Twitter.
Same “logic.”
Look, Mr. Moore: the Founding Fathers may not have known how weapons and communications technology would advance, but they bloody well did know that technology does and would contin...
The Founding Fathers couldn’t possibly have foreseen the telegraph, let alone telephone, let alone cell phones. Nor high-speed web offset printing presses, let alone daisy wheel or dot-matrix printers (remember those?), let alone laser or inkjet printers, and desktop publishing software. Not to mention radio, television, and the Internet, let alone blogs and Facebook and Twitter.
So, maybe we should rethink that whole Freedom of Speech and of the Press thing? I mean, when they thought that up, they were thinking about maybe someone standing on a rooftop and shouting (Ye Olde Towne Crier), the Pony Express for mail, and manual massive-screw-type printing presses. They could never have imagined someone sitting down at a keyboard at home, let alone with a handheld touch device, and minutes later having their words read by thousands or even millions of people. They could never have imagined revolutions being synchronized all over a nation with precision via cell phones and Twitter.
Same “logic.”
Look, Mr. Moore: the Founding Fathers may not have known how weapons and communications technology would advance, but they bloody well did know that technology does and would continue to advance in those fields and others. They lived in the Age of Enlightenment. They had seen some pretty significant advances in their lifetimes.
Heck, they had Benjamin-fricken-Franklin as one of their number! You know, as in the dude who invented the bifocals? The free-standing wood-burning stove that emitted much more heat into a room from the same amount of wood as a fireplace would and which still bears his name? Oh, and let’s not forget that bit with the kite and the key, without which pretty much all of modern technology would be impossible (including whatever you’re reading this text on)! He even had a paper version of an early blog (Poor Richard’s Almanack)!
Yes, they knew that technology advances! Do you honestly think that they would intend the Militia (meaning the body of the People as flatly and explicitly stated in three consecutive drafts of the Second Amendment) would remain equipped with only arms that the Founding Fathers knew, while their enemies, those who would overthrow freedom, would have whatever modern weaponry technology had created by then!?
Some of us have even evolved to take the appearance of a hutt.
"Now, if the founding fathers could have looked into a crystal ball and seen AK-47s and a Glock semiautomatic pistol, I got a feeling they would want to leave a little note behind and probably tell us, you know, that's not really what we mean when we say 'bear arms.'"
I'm also sure that if they looked at our current society, they would wonder why there are so many Negros and redskins among the civilized. They'd even wonder why there is a family of slaves living in the White House and calling themselves "the first family".
A country can be founded on ideas. But at some point, somewhere those ideas need to change with the times. Ideas can become out dated. Following blindly never helped anyone. A constitution is a good idea though.
*Ducks and covers*
To Propose Amendments
In the U.S. Congress, both the House of Representatives and the Senate approve by a two-thirds supermajority vote, a joint resolution amending the Constitution. Amendments so approved do not require the signature of the President of the United States and are sent directly to the states for ratification.
Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. (This method has never been used.)
To Ratify Amendments
Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or
Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. This method has been used only once -- to ratify the 21st Amendment -- repealing Prohibition.
The Supreme Court has stated that ratification must be within "some reasonable time after the proposal." Beginning with the 18th amendme...
To Propose Amendments
In the U.S. Congress, both the House of Representatives and the Senate approve by a two-thirds supermajority vote, a joint resolution amending the Constitution. Amendments so approved do not require the signature of the President of the United States and are sent directly to the states for ratification.
Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. (This method has never been used.)
To Ratify Amendments
Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or
Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. This method has been used only once -- to ratify the 21st Amendment -- repealing Prohibition.
The Supreme Court has stated that ratification must be within "some reasonable time after the proposal." Beginning with the 18th amendment, it has been customary for Congress to set a definite period for ratification. In the case of the 18th, 20th, 21st, and 22nd amendments, the period set was 7 years, but there has been no determination as to just how long a "reasonable time" might extend.
Of the thousands of proposals that have been made to amend the Constitution, only 33 obtained the necessary two-thirds vote in Congress. Of those 33, only 27 amendments (including the Bill of Rights) have been ratified.
Many conservatives think the Constitution was written by God, which is why they don't like the idea of it being "amended," but most people just believe it was written by intelligent, reasonable men. And it was.
The "creators" got the Constitution essentially right for then and now, but there are areas that over the centuries that have been amended, some have been added and subtracted (like Prohibition), etc. One or two amendments need to be updated for modern times, such as the 2nd Amendment, but other than that, it's a well-written document covering most of the bases for any lover of liberty to live by.
Hey...if people think they can handle assault weapons, then maybe they can handle nukes, too...
Nukes are a weapon, it just kills more than an assault weapon, which apparently a lot of people think it's OK to have on the streets...
Nukes are the most fearsome weapons ever invented and i wish humanity could go back in time and take another path, never creating one in the first place. I do not think governments should have those horrors, let alone individuals or groups.
The Militia (the general populace) was expected to obtain, maintain, and wield their own Arms in defense of the nation. The military was expected to supply Ordnance.
Slippery slope fallacy doesn’t work.
OK; so the 28th amendment; strike down the 3rd, 6th, 7th, and 8th amendments; while we’re at it; I’m sure we could find reasons to dump the 1st, 4th, and 5th too.
That holds regardless of whether you believe the Creator to be YHWH the LORD God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, or Odin, or Zeus, or Brahma, or Quetzalcoatl, or Izanagi, etc. etc. etc., or even Darwinian evolution.
When I say "God", I'm pretty much meaning "Creator". I don't care what you call him/her/it. Darwin evolution rights? That doesn't even make sense, unless of course you consider Darwin a God, or a Creator then I guess, more power to ya.
So yes, Darwinian evolution would qualify here.
So what's the world's largest power right now? I posit that it's the US government. So, by his own logic, defense against an overreaching US government is an acceptable historical analog. Then, for the language to have any practical meaning, the militia to which the Amendment refers would need to be armed at least as well as the potential tyrant. So following his logic to its conclusion, the people ("all the farmers and the merchants and everybody") SHOULD be armed with the equivalent of what the US government has.
I'm okay with that.
Not just regulated..."well" regulated.
Well regulated to me means that government should "regulate" all facets of firearm ownership and use.
Diagram the sentence if you must; but it is rather clear, there is a predication clause, and the main statement. Break it in two, which one stands on its own as a sentence? The “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state” Part or the “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” part?
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Is a complete statement on its own.
Whereas, the “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.” Is not; simply put, the intent is clear; people are to be allowed to keep and bear arms, without regulation or infringement, so that a well regulated militia can be created if needed.
That's what the "creators" of the Constitution had in mind...not that we just keep our guns "clean and oiled" so they could be fired correctly...
Since there seems to be so much discussion on the 2nd Amendment, it's obvious that the language used is vague at best.
Too bad the "creators' weren't more succinct and precise when they wrote the Constitution.
That's what I advocate...updating several of the Amendments, and getting the language specific enough for a 12 year-old to understand.
There is no question as to what the term “Militia” meant back then, because three consecutive drafts of the Second Amendment included this text:
“A well regulated Militia composed of the body of the People being necessary to the security of a free State…”
The body of the People is all of them.
The only reason — the only reason — that that boldfaced text was removed from the final ratified version was to save space, because it was considered redundant! Everyone knew what the word “Militia” meant!
The founding fathers made the "God given" reference. Who's to say where they acquired their inspiration? Regardless, the Constitution is as valid today as it was over 200 years ago.
The world is full of petty tyrants and blowhards like Michael Moore, who would love the opportunity to run your life for profit and amusement. They only serve to highlight the importance of that extraordinary document.