"Private ownership of guns is illegal." - (Proposed) New US Constitution.

Gee,I wonder who's encouraging that kind of thought.Stupid, liberal professors! :banghead:

Looks like it may be the work of just one student. Judith Blaus

I remember I had some truly naive ideas about the world at that age. Hopefully she will grow up.

The fact that this was produced in dimwad academia aside, does anyone have a reference to that footnote that indicates the "no gun clause' was taken from, "Article 2 of the 1791 Amendment"?

Trying to figure out if they were even referring to an official US document....

If it was a draft of an official document, I wonder how long the guy who thought up the "loaned out for hunting" line (in 1791!) lasted before being tarred and feathered.

It isnt a student....


That ignorant (expletive not used in deference to Art's gramma) is unfortunately a professor.

A government can declare gun ownership to be illegal. But a government cannot declare gun ownership to be unlawful.

Interesting: A constitution that contains everything except for the actual "operating system" of a polity.

This isn't a constitution. It's a laundry list of entitlements and social policies, which isn't surprising, considering the source is a professor of sociology.

What a lightweight.

I read the whole thing. Once you can get past the redundancies, contradictions, and spelling errors, it reads like something penned by a few liberal arts sophomores over a Frappuccino at Starbucks. The right to education, the right to housing, the right to food...yadda yadda.

"Freedom is not empowerment. Empowerment is what the Serbs have in Bosnia. Anybody can grab a gun and be empowered. It's not entitlement. An entitlement is what people on welfare get, and how free are they? It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights-the "right" to education, the "right" to health care, the "right" to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery- hay and a barn for human cattle." --P.J. O'Rourke

She should also declare that baseball bats, knives, etc., are illegal.

Along with fists and feet.

Maybe something that will be "grown out of."

Or, maybe, more darkly, something alerting us to the fact that WW IV is being fought in U.S. classrooms--and we aren't winning...

Just more evidence that Joe McCarthy was right. Communism is alive, thriving, and has invaded every nook and cranny in our society.

Well, it's UNC- I'm not surprised to see that kind of crap come from there. I'm still amazed that the ROTC units can survive on that campus, but they do.

Here's my revised US Constitution:

Every citizen's right to do whatever he pleases shall not be infringed, except in cases where exercising one citizen's rights would infringe another's rights.

Click to expand...

Too bad it's not that simple...

That ignorant (expletive not used in deference to Art's gramma) is unfortunately a professor.

Click to expand...

Ye Gods. I didn't even look at that. She earned her MA the year before I was born. *sigh* I guess some of them never grow up.

Wow. That is absolutely pitiful. Here's her resume, or whatever you call it in academia:

http://www.unc.edu/~jrblau/CV-april03.htm

Seriously, how some people can be so naive. It's unreal. Like she has absolutely no connection to reality. A professor. If this was written by a child it would be unfortunate but understandable...she's a professor!

She should get a job at the UN, she'd fit right in. "All people have the right to comfortable footwear". Ta da!

Interesting: A constitution that contains everything except for the actual "operating system" of a polity.

Click to expand...

I noticed the same. Nothing about how the gov't works, just what people can and can't do.

I wonder what would happen if I wrote and told her I believe that public protests should be outlawed. Even though the vast majority start and stay peaceful, some do get violent, and people die. Is voicing your opinion really worth people dying for? Of course, letter writing would still be allowed.

Also note she dropped the 3rd Amendment, at least from what I could see.

She even re-illegalized drugs.


"The Armex Defense Indexed stocks will be abolished"

"Collective enterprise, with revenue sharing, is encouraged."

"either in the United States or elsewhere" (Italics added by me)


So that last part is after many things. Does that means she WANTS more wars? With what guns will we fight them, lady?!

No wonder she works at a university.

Do any of you honestly think she would be capable of even holding a menial day job in the private sector?

Wow. All I can say is "wow." She clearly has no concept of A) rights, B) human nature, and C) how government works.

I read the whole thing, and, save for the parts that were taken verbatim from our current Constitution, there was not a single point that wasn't a bad idea. Even the ones that started out well ended with something like "...except as provided by law," which, as we all know, is no protection at all.

Ms. Blau, are you sure you wouldn't be happier in France? I hear socialism is working great over there.

Ms. Blau, are you sure you wouldn't be happier in France? I hear socialism is working great over there.

Click to expand...

France would be too Captalistic of a society for her. I scanned through as much of a variety of her publications as I could stand. Anyone who uses the term "The Workers" as much as she does would even have problems in Marx's Perfect World <TM>.

Also sets up some potential conflicts:

2. The right of workers to strike is recognized, and the law will regulate this right to insure the essential services of the community.

3. All citizens have the duty and the right to work, to advancement through work, and to sufficient remuneration. Governments will monitor the cost of living and ensure that wages are sufficient to satisfy the needs of workers and their families.

Click to expand...

I read the whole thing, and, save for the parts that were taken verbatim from our current Constitution, there was not a single point that wasn't a bad idea.

Click to expand...

I dunno. The part about not being forced to join any professional organizations or unions sounded good to me. That was about it, thouhg.

What does she purport to teach? I cant even imagine anyone stupid enough to consent to being governed by such a document, let alone write such a turd.

The law shall do this, the law shall do that. The law has been animated to fulfill all the functions of free citizens. What will people do if they do not wish to work for the government?

People would only experience liberty or prosperity only as much as they could avoid the government. A government with such weighty obligations would have a near limitless appetite for the wealth and labor of men.

If I have the time I'll have to disect that "constitution" and email it to her (politely of course). If I do that, and especially if I get a response, I'll post the entire exchange here.

Compare publications against awards.

The fact of her massive publications list against her horridly small list of awards speaks volums of her lack of peer credibility. Such a massive list of publications SHOULD have brought her significant recognition from her peers. It looks as though she is little appreciated by her peers.

Doc2005