• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Founding Fathers were WRONG

Ganondagan said:
Give us examples of those better innovations.
Click to expand...
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that he thinks it's better or in a society where individuals have no right to defend themselves. And somehow all you can just trust the government to leave all of your rights and text despite the reality that we're seeing in places where this right was stolen that other rights are being lost.
 
Ganondagan said:
Give us examples of those better innovations.
Click to expand...

A few excerpts:

Article 6
[Marriage – Family – Children]

(1) Marriage and the family shall enjoy the special protection of the state.

(2) The care and upbringing of children is the natural right of parents and a duty primarily incumbent upon them. The state shall watch over them in the performance of this duty.

(3) Children may be separated from their families against the will of their parents or guardians only pursuant to a law and only if the parents or guardians fail in their duties or the children are otherwise in danger of serious neglect.

(4) Every mother shall be entitled to the protection and care of the community.

(5) Children born outside of marriage shall be provided by legislation with the same opportunities for physical and mental development and for their position in society as are enjoyed by those born within marriage.
Click to expand...
These two provisions have lead to a generous allotment for new parents who wish to start families. No such right exists in the US.

Article 10
[Privacy of correspondence, posts and telecommunications]

(1) The privacy of correspondence, posts and telecommunications shall be inviolable.

(2) Restrictions may be ordered only pursuant to a law. If the restriction serves to protect the free democratic basic order or the existence or security of the Federation or of a Land, the law may provide that the person affected shall not be informed of the restriction and that recourse to the courts shall be replaced by a review of the case by agencies and auxiliary agencies appointed by the legislature.
Click to expand...
Strong privacy protections that do not rely on business largess.

THE CONSTITUTION ACTS 1867 to 1982

Federal laws of Canada
laws-lois.justice.gc.ca laws-lois.justice.gc.ca

Democratic Rights​

Marginal note:Democratic rights of citizens

3 Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.
Click to expand...
Affirmative right to vote for all citizens

Affirmative action programs

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.End note (85)
Click to expand...

Right to organizations based on personal characteristics

Minority Language Educational Rights​

Marginal note:Language of instruction
  • 23(1) Citizens of Canada
    • (a) whose first language learned and still understood is that of the English or French linguistic minority population of the province in which they reside, or
    • (b) who have received their primary school instruction in Canada in English or French and reside in a province where the language in which they received that instruction is the language of the English or French linguistic minority population of the province,
    • have the right to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in that language in that province.End note (94)
Click to expand...
Right to an education

Multicultural heritage

27 This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.
Click to expand...
Preservation of heritage

Rights guaranteed equally to both sexes

28 Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.
Click to expand...
Equality between sexes

Principals in France

"The Nation shall guarantee to all, notably to children, mothers, and elderly workers, the protection of health, material security, rest, and leisure. Every human being who, because of his age, physical or mental state, or economic situation, is incapable of working shall have the right to obtain suitable means of existence from society."
Click to expand...
Right to medical care


This is just an example from three countries.
 
CLAX1911 said:
We can change the Constitution sell it to the people.

Hey Americans do you want less rights do you want to police to have ultimate power over you do you want criminals to be stronger than you in every case and do you want to be criminalized if you fight back against them?

Have fun with that one.
Click to expand...
I agree. From a practical perspective, changing the constitution right now is not feasible. However, I did not advocate changing anything in this thread.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Guns are regulated.

Film yourself cutting 20" off your shotguns barrel and post it for everyone to see.
Click to expand...
I'd have to purchase a shotgun first.

Or...be given one?

Acquire, let's go with "acquire".

But yeah, there are some really odd regulations I've heard of, like the ones which make that action illegal.
 
redbeer said:
I've never understood why some are so scared of law abiding citizens having guns. Laws or amendments have zero effect on the criminal part of society, they're getting guns no matter what. So, all of this BS boils down to whether should "law abiding citizens" own guns.

How do you plan to take away guns from "law abiding citizens" and why do you want to take their guns? Is it just an issue you are using to instigate society, create a mess and possibly a bloody one to release other motives?
Click to expand...
Accusing others of being scared and for maybe having plans to overthrow society or create anarchy or whatever... sure fire way to get laughed at. LOL
 
Bodi said:
The Founding Fathers couldn’t have predicted how the Second Amendment would affect today’s world, and their original purpose is often misunderstood. They created it to protect the country through a well-organized militia, not to allow unlimited access to guns. Guns are tools, not basic rights like life, liberty, or happiness.

The idea that everyone needs a gun to prevent tyranny or for personal safety ignores the harm caused by so many guns in society, including violence and preventable deaths. Supreme Court rulings like District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) have stretched the Second Amendment beyond what it was meant to do, putting individual rights over public safety. We need to rethink these interpretations to address gun violence and protect both constitutional rights and our communities.
Click to expand...


Frankly the US Constitution needs to be torn up in it's entirety and replaced with a new one
Actually, replaced not with a single codified document, but a multitude of individual constitutional laws that merely need a majority in Congress to repeal and replace.
 
tshade said:
correct----there is no "security of a free state" if guns are not regulated....


"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".
Click to expand...
Well regulated as in well functioning. NOT lots of useless laws.
 
Rich2018 said:
Frankly the US Constitution needs to be torn up in it's entirety and replaced with a new one
Actually, replaced not with a single codified document, but a multitude of individual constitutional laws that merely need a majority in Congress to repeal and replace.
Click to expand...
Not happening. The Constitution is an agreement between the states to form a Federal form of government. Congress should be subservient to the states.
 
Rich2018 said:
Frankly the US Constitution needs to be torn up in it's entirety and replaced with a new one
Actually, replaced not with a single codified document, but a multitude of individual constitutional laws that merely need a majority in Congress to repeal and replace.
Click to expand...

The Constitution exists so that shit like that doesn't happen.
 
Bodi said:
The Founding Fathers couldn’t have predicted how the Second Amendment would affect today’s world, and their original purpose is often misunderstood. They created it to protect the country through a well-organized militia, not to allow unlimited access to guns. Guns are tools, not basic rights like life, liberty, or happiness.

The idea that everyone needs a gun to prevent tyranny or for personal safety ignores the harm caused by so many guns in society, including violence and preventable deaths. Supreme Court rulings like District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) have stretched the Second Amendment beyond what it was meant to do, putting individual rights over public safety. We need to rethink these interpretations to address gun violence and protect both constitutional rights and our communities.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we didn't have cops or an army. People needed to be protected from the slaves they held in bondage and the natives they stole land from.

To think that they wanted people armed so as to engage in civil war is absurd. Hell, they didn't even want most people to vote.
 
j brown's body said:
Yeah, we didn't have cops or an army. People needed to be protected from the slaves they held in bondage and the natives they stole land from.

To think that they wanted people armed so as to engage in civil war is absurd. Hell, they didn't even want most people to vote.
Click to expand...

But the founders did want some people to vote and to keep and bear arms, eh? And you don't like that we have extended protection of those rights to all our peaceful citizens.
 
Rich2018 said:
Sorry yes
An ungoverned organization, operating without any rules/regulations, can in no way said to be "well regulated", but instead just be a mob.
Click to expand...

Do you know of any organizations like that? It's like you're using a private definition of the term. But surely not. 😆
 
JMB1911A1 said:
Not happening. The Constitution is an agreement between the states to form a Federal form of government. Congress should be subservient to the states.
Click to expand...

The states are subservient to the federal government
The government is (in the form of Congress and the Executive), subservient to the people that elected it

IMO the Judiciary should not be regarded as part of the government, but independent to it.
 
Rich2018 said:
Sorry yes
An ungoverned organization, operating without any rules/regulations, can in no way said to be "well regulated", but instead just be a mob.
Click to expand...


27 words: Deconstructing the Second Amendment

What did it mean to be well regulated? One of the biggest challenges in interpreting a centuries-old document is that the meanings of words change or diverge."Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight."In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty
 
Ganondagan said:
27 words: Deconstructing the Second Amendment

What did it mean to be well regulated? One of the biggest challenges in interpreting a centuries-old document is that the meanings of words change or diverge."Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight."In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty
Click to expand...

Well yes, but I think the idea of an unorganized organization is much funnier.
 
Ganondagan said:
27 words: Deconstructing the Second Amendment

What did it mean to be well regulated? One of the biggest challenges in interpreting a centuries-old document is that the meanings of words change or diverge."Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight."In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty
Click to expand...

You can't have discipline without a raft of rules and regulations

Moreover you can't exactly be described as well armed, if every member was furnishing their own weapons.
 
Rich2018 said:
You can't have discipline without a raft of rules and regulations

Moreover you can't exactly be described as well armed, if every member was furnishing their own weapons.
Click to expand...

That tends to demolish the idea that the American public is well armed.
 
The Mark said:
I'd have to purchase a shotgun first.

Or...be given one?

Acquire, let's go with "acquire".

But yeah, there are some really odd regulations I've heard of, like the ones which make that action illegal.
Click to expand...
So they are regulated. This is an artifact of attempted gun control in the, 30s kind of pointless now
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom