Attacks on first and second amendments are becoming more and more brazen. Five years ago the man running for president mocked those who would wish to keep their first and second amendment rights. Today we have law makers actually seeking to almost ban some of those rights.
What is wrong with the Constitution? Why should it be rewritten, modified, ignored or thrown away?
Georgia Democrat lawmaker wants to limit the first amendment by not allowing people to make fun of others. I highly doubt he ever had a problem with the future president making fun of and mocking those who cling to their guns and Bibles.
Missouri wants to make all assault weapon or large capacity magazine illegal. If that doesn't sound so bad then you need to come back to reality. Those are loose definitions and could easily be changed at a later date. Just about every time the post office raises it's rates it would be time to redefine large capacity to something smaller than it was before.
Free speech is undemocratic--it favors massively talented speakers, & at the same time it protect unpopular speakers from democratic criticism, which can be quite unambiguous...
Guns may not seem undemocratic, but to an extent they are. Think about a man's home is his castle; think about the way a man feels whole by himself, or with his own, when it comes to self-defense, or the similar sense of ownership implied in citizens enforcing the laws. That's just not democratic, it reeks of manliness... So the march of democracy...
I disagree Titus. Freedom of speech is highly democratic. Anyone can open their mouths and say what they want, subject to responsibility of course, no matter what their ability to speak or expound on their chosen topic. Just as with television shows those that have something to offer will be preferred over those that have nothing, poorer speakers will be less preferred over better orators. Highly, highly democratic, voting by preference.
Go back before TV shows, in fact, go back before the American Revolution, which recreated democracy--the entire state-federal constitutional arrangement is meant to stand in the way of the inevitable self-destruction of democracy, at least to go by the Federalist...
Now, as political facts go: Voting is not a democratic principle--it is an aristocratic principle. The democratic way is lots. Distinguishing men is distinguishing superior from inferior. Democrats are equals, therefore indistinguishable. Democracy really means majority rule; minority rights, especially minority rights to free speech & religious rituals, stand in the way of majority rule.
The creation of the American republics & the USA was said to have a lot to do with a new political science which would transform republican politics. Democracy would rise by degrees, but under the control of non-democratic elements: A judiciary independent of the people (immovable during good behavior); a legislature independent of the people (no imperative mandate), & partly elected in state legislatures, not directly by the people; & even the national executive being elected indirectly: The Constitution does not even say the president must be elected by the people in the several states... In this constitutional framework, yeah, you can have free speech for everybody.
But that's not democracy. If you want to see democracy, you have a better view if you go to high-school or wherever kids are among themselves. See if the unpopular have a right to speak in the group. Maybe you'll learn a couple of things...
You can often get a view of democracy if you watch some old Westerns. Those filmmakers were wonderfully undeluded about American democracy.
Mark Twain also had an undeluded view of the phenomenon, regarding both North & South with a rather cynical eye.
Even so. Better speakers will be preferred? Who judges good & bad here?Democrats.
I have a better chance at waking up tomorrow being Michael Jordan than the first passing further than this guys desk.
The second, reality also tells me that at a later date, using your logic, the capacity could be increased. Just because we are currently scared of a climate where only one thing can possibly happen, that climate can change to where it could go the other way. That being said, this is Missouri again and while I had a blast canoeing the rivers there, those people on both sides scare the shit out of me. I dont' see that state passing this. Maybe only one or two other states will pass magazine bills and that will be it, not a prayer nationally, and I don't see even a significant minority of states passing it.
In my opinion, nothing about the first and second amendments needs to be changed.
With that said, pushes to create new amendments changing the nature of existing ones are not new, and the mechanism is built into the Constitution to allow for it when there is sufficient public and political will. I don't think we should demonize attempts to change the constitution on their face (e.g. making the document fixed and sacrosanct - clearly not the intent of its writers). But certainly we can criticize poorly thought out or flat out wrong attempts - as I think these are.
One day, Jefferson & Madison debated this. Jefferson said the Constitution should be re-voted in some way by each new generation--what's fair about your old man deciding your life for you? Madison pointed out that this kind of equality made law-enforcement impossible, much less the attitude to the laws which gives the laws their power. Apparently, Jefferson eventually came around to this view, for practical reasons if nothing else. Madison used to talk about the need to make the laws venerable as the only ingredient missing in the founding--in any founding. Lincoln later also said that the American constitution should become the object of a political religion. That's not possible without people demonizing, to use your phrase, attempts to change the Constitution. You cannot ease their labor without detaching the people from their own, their way of life, the way law works its works in America.
I might be willing to talk about further enhancements, clarifications, or amendments -- but not in a context of anger, and not in a context in which some pols want clarifications or amendments to empower government relative to individuals. So I'll pick the simpler (and true) answer: I think they're fine the way they are.
I also think the first two are critical. Once the first two amendments are gone or weakened enough the others really don't matter any more.
To the OP: Might be nice if your source bothered to cite the legislature proposal. An interesting point about the citation. The portions quoted would appear to exempt anyone illegally possessing the proscribed weaponry from the requirements.
Now just for fun they are going after the 4th amendment. I guess that's not correct; they are only attacking the 4th amendment rights of those who think they have second amendment rights. I also like how what they really want is always a mistake when it comes to light. Someone had to actually put those words into the bill but it was all a mistake. Don't worry because this bill is just a "guiding light of where we need to go." The words will be removed for now and we can reintroduce them later on.
Bill or Rights Scorecard: 3 down 7 to go.
Forgot the link.
It's not like you are going to believe it even if you read it.