N Y times law professor says The U S constitioun is out of date

It's a NY professor! Need I say more?:banghead:Ni guess if you want to play that ball game I guess I can buy class 3 firearms now stupid professor.

People can write anything they want. (A right, BTW, codified by the First Amendment to that "outdated" Constitution.) It doesn't make them right.

This is the same garbage the Nazis started spouting just before they suspended all Germany's liberty's overnight by executive order,Hitler was chancellor for only 52 days before he became dictator,as chancellor he suspended the right to free speech,the right of association,and religon and the right to bear arms ...

Click to expand...

The 2010s United States is far different from 1930s Germany.

There is a whole literature of folks writing about how the Constitution was out of date. The first guy who wrote that the Constitution was out of date probably came up with it on Sept 18, 1787. It's their First Amendment write to speak their opinion. It is yours to rebut it.

Is there a link to the aforementioned article? Or at least a title and date? Not that I'm doubting what the OP might have read, but it would be helpful to know what was written.

One of my favorite, teeth-grinding headlines from the NYT was this one, from "CONSTITUTION OUT OF DATE; And Made by Men Who Burned Witches, Says Union Labor Attorney." (NYT, 27 Dec `11).

Wish someone would have countered with "LABOR UNIONS OUT OF DATE; And Made by Men Who Buried Jimmy Hoffa."

What article? No link, no title, no date, no author, no quote. That's not a lot to go on.

Wow, in discussing the US Constitution we hit Godwin's Rule with the very first post. Great post, BTW. You didn't provide an article link, the name of hte professor, or anything really relevant to the article. Given your lack of information, your post is pretty worthless.

The Constitution is out of date, starting with the oldest freedom, freedom of speech. 12 years in prison for being a vocal moron coming right up!

The bad thing is that this guy teaches others this crap. Colleges and such are nothing but the recruiting offices and training grounds of the Anti-gun Left...

A lot of these commentators, many of them Euros, seem to be upset over the fact that the U.S. Constitution, unlike the more "progressive" European constitutions, doesn't protect certain "rights" they believe in; such as the "right" to have others be forced to provide a living for you.

The main disconnect comes from differences in the definition of rights. People like the author of that article define "rights" as privileges granted to people by society/government/the collective, or whoever happens to be holding the gun or the spear. By contrast, the Declaration, the Constitution, and our entire Republic were set up to operate on the premise that rights are natural, inalienable, and inherent, and that there is no such thing as a "positive right," aka the right to have someone else be made to do something for you; they operate under the notion that true rights are strictly negative, aka the right to do something without interference from others.

Unfortunately most people nowadays, including gun owners, do not accept this classical liberal definition of rights, as evidenced by the commonly-made statement that "the Constitution GIVES us the right to bear arms," or something to that effect.

If it can be GIVEN, it is not a right -- it is just a privilege that you hold at someone else's pleasure.

The bad thing is that this guy teaches others this crap. Colleges and such are nothing but the recruiting offices and training grounds of the Anti-gun Left...

Click to expand...

People arrive in colleges already antigun. If anything, it's more of a chance to recruit them into the progun side now that they are no longer surrounded by all the old influences and they are more prone to trying new things. I have managed to get four people onto the path so far. I've got a strong argument planted into their heads that if I'm just one of the sane friends they have and I'm a gun guy, then perhaps guns aren't all that evil. If you can at least plant the idea that they should try shooting at least once in their life, then that's the beginning of a victory. I've interested one guy, an MD resident, into coming to a gun show with me, and I've made it my ultimate objective to turn him into a confirmed gun owner, if not NRA member by the time the semester ends.

Most people, strangely, are actually rather neutral on the gun issues. Their form of antigun thinking is based more around ignorance and conformity rather than actual feeling and fear. On the issue, even during class debates, most people are normally silent. This means that while vocal antis are much more common than vocal supporters, the greater majority of students are neutral and don't have strong personal feelings. These are the people who you actually need to reach out to. They could be rather effectively turned our way with a bit of good persuasion of stating the facts and clearing up misconceptions. There is always someone who is willing to listen and be convinced.

Great comment. Yes, we sometimes forget that God gave us our rights and a government that recognized His providence in our lives. Thank you for that reminder.

God bless,

Alaska

The thing that makes pre nazi germany hard to compare with the US is the poverty. Germany was so poor people ate their pets and here comes Hitler promising everyone their day in the sun and everybody followed him because they were willing to try anything.


one day I will learn how to properly punctuate.

It looks like nothing is going to get this thread off of Nazis.



Bitte Sie ausgehen die Diskussion.

The bad thing is that this guy teaches others this crap. Colleges and such are nothing but the recruiting offices and training grounds of the Anti-gun Left...

Click to expand...

What exactly does he teach? We really have no idea at all since there is no link to the material under discussion. I don't suppose you have a copy of his curriculum?

Also, the original poster isn't a reliable reporter of it since his post is deficient in content, and is little more than an curiously punctuated run-on rant about Hitler.

People like the author of that article define "rights" as privileges granted to people by society/government/the collective, or whoever happens to be holding the gun or the spear.

Click to expand...

What article? Is it really wise to make such broad statements when you presumably haven't even read the article in question?

Furthermore, even though we really have no idea what the original article is about, it's not entirely unreasonable to state that Constitution and Bill of Rights actually are out of date.

For example, the Third Amendment.

Currently, this thread is worthless and probably should be closed.

A previous poster claims present day US is very different from 1930's Germany. I disagree. I see more and more similarities all the time. The uniformity of the press worries me the most. And now we have a president who has no meaningful opposition, either in media or in the political arena. I believe the Constitution and all it stands for is in very serious trouble. Our demise could be years, not decades away.

For those curious, here's the article in question. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/u...ople-around-the-world.html?ref=usconstitution

I don't really see what there is to rant about on this forum, however, so I'm going to close this one out.