Why do libs consider parts of the constitution to be "outdated"?

Question

Check out the answer by the lib that states "outdated" LMAO



http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ak.wQ4VZoNVzd7ugrQ1m4jPzy6IX?qid=20061009143920AAjILjq

libs are shredding the constitution

lib talk sound like blah blah blah Since when is flag burning freedom of speech? Oh never mind when lib judges said it was Now that is called trampleing on rights!

Answer 1

Liberals lie and say that the "Constitution is a growing and living thing."
"It is outdated, and must be updated."
Same thing the communists used to try to pull.
What these freaks really want is a NEW DEMOCRAT CONSTITUTION.
It will be Democrat owned and operated.

Answer 2

And see my answer to the same question -

Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.

Answer 3

Its not outdated its just misused.
Conservatives thing whena liberal says gun control we want to take your guns away. I personally dont care if you own a gun, a rifle or teach your kids to use it. What I care about is that anyone can go to a large city and buy a handgun out of some guys trunk. There needs to be better regulation.
Plus if another country invades us its not likely they would win due to the large number of gun holders, you could just kill the invaders for all us liberal *******.

Answer 4

I do not think the second amendment is outdated. There ARE restrictions on firearms that can legally be owned at present. I refer to the old argument-if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Liberals think that passing laws prevents whatever the law prevents and that throwing money at a problem will solve the problem. They are wrong on both counts.

Answer 5

Okay...so you raise up a militia and take on the government....i'd get some popcorn and watch cause it would be freaking hilarious...

the second amendment is outdated because the government has nucs and somehow i doubt a "well armed militia" could really do anything about it.

I don't have any problem with someone who owns weapons to hunt with or whatever but lets face it....you don't need an automatic weapon or handgun to kill a deer.

Answer 6

One person. How about when the President of the United States said that it is just a piece of paper? Why do cons consider the entire Constitution to be "just a piece of paper?"
If you wish to judge on the comments of one person, expect those who answer to do the same, just to show you how ridiculous it is to do so.

Answer 7

The 2nd admendment is outdated. That's what I said.

The right to bear arms is very broad. People don't need fully automatic weapons, plutonium, WMD's, etc. The forefathers could never imagine such terrible weapons.

As for guns, citizens only need them for protection, hunting, and sport. THAT'S IT. I own one myself.

AND criminals, nutcases, and felons, do NOT need guns.

Answer 8

To have complete control, things like the second ammendment and others must be eliminated.

Answer 9

they made a good point...why the hell do you need a nuke in your house?? you wanna own an uzi for duck hunting...gonna give it a heart attack?

go get some facts, we arent shredding it, your bush and dick are.

Answer 10

why dont You try reading an answer before You condemn it ? are You in Congress ?