The Constitution was instated in its original form in 1787 and its contents continually spark conversation and debate about the American ways. When political or moral conversation gets heated, we always add in our two cents, and most times much more. But what if you could actually change the laws on the issues you don't agree with? What if you could single handedly abolish, add, or reconstruct any aspect of the American Constitution? Ladies, do tell, what would you alter?
Fendi
Burton
Andrea Conti
I think certain states should revise their own constitution. BTW -when did Popsugar start asking real questions???
1abolish the right to bear arms.
there is absolutely NO NEED to have guns in your house, whether or not its a tradition to go hunting. i think it was something that was useful for it's time but it is completely outdated and unnecessary now. i mean, who needs an AK-47 or 9MM or rifle in their house, especially if there are children around? the fact is that children will find a way to get into your gun collection and that's when accidents happen. Would you rather have a trophy deer hanging over your mantle or a dead child to bury (or maimed at the very least!)???
i think it causes a heck of a lot more problems than it solves. i'm not totally against hunting but for the overall good of our country, it would be help more than hurt us in the long run. i don't really like hunting but i at least understand the principle of it. i just don't think its worth appeasing a certain segment of the population.
2I agree with nicachica!
3I would banish the electoral college, and allow the popular vote of the PEOPLE to speak for itself.
4It is POINTLESS to have this antiquated system in place.
I think, at this point, people are WELL aware of the consequences and importance of their voting choices.
I'm with klynnmorton on the popular vote.
5If hunting is necessary I say go back to bows and arrows! Seems more worth it that way anyway. Okay, I don't know much about hunting.
I completely agree with nicachica.
I don't know about states putting together their own constitution, I have a feeling it would be like our court systems.
6I am going to have to disagree about the popular vote. The reason they created the electoral college was so that a highly concentrated area of people wouldn't have more say than a smaller population area. I think it is important to make sure everyone is represented in the best manner they can be and I don't think the popular vote would do that. The electoral college is really like a fairness doctrine that I believe should stay in place so the people in Small Town, USA have the same voice as people in Big City, USA. Oh and also, I want to point out that the popular vote has equalled the college for all most of the presidential elections in our nation's history. Sorry for the length...it's my history buff and poli sci major self coming out.
7Well, it's a pretty solid document, I think, especially considering how it was written and the era it was written in. This is not something the writers threw together in a few months, or even a few years - lots of thought and planning for the good of all citizens went into it. I think the rights guaranteed to us in the constitution, even the right to bear arms, remain of crucial importance today. Now, I'm no Constitutional scholar, so that's just my humble opinion.
8Gotta agree with abolishing the Right to Bear Arms. I realize people use guns to hunt but the amount of people killed by guns in America every year is out of control.
Read this article for a scary illustration of the world we live in. http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/04/21/weekinreview/20070422_MARSH...
9all ducks would be required to wear pants.
10Thanks for making me laugh bluejeanie! You can always make my day.
11glad i could make you smile.
eh, sometimes politics get too hot online, manners
seem to disappear when you can't see someone's face, i think.
besides, aren't you sick of those pervert ducks? indecent indeed!!
12I would solidify our right to privacy in no uncertain terms. The "right to privacy" is not spelled out in our Constitution, but rather implied in certain language in various amendments. Because it's not spelled out, formalists and conservatives claim that a woman has no right to privacy with regard to her right to choose. The right to privacy is the key to so many important issues, including the right to same sex marriages, the right to choose, and so on.
13I know, I know! Those wretched ducks are everywhere in the good state of MN bluejeanie.
You are very correct about how things can get online...especially if you can't tell how a person means their comments.
14I agree with HistoryGeek it seems pretty solid. I think trying to ban guns would be a disaster. I grew up with guns though so I'm a little biased.
15The right to bear arms - perhaps appropriate and necessary then, but completely outdated now. I freaking hate guns.
16Amen, nica and bigestive. I hate guns and there is no reason to have them in your household or in your car for that matter. Hunting is another thing, but don't get me started with that because I dislike hunting very very much.
17Amen, nica and bigestive. I hate guns and there is no reason to have them in your household or in your car for that matter. Hunting is another thing, but don't get me started with that because I dislike hunting very very much.
18Sorry, didn't mean to post twice
19ok,ok....I tried to hold it in. I am not pro-hunting in any way. I've never even been hunting. BUT, i do live in the south, and everyone hunts. There are 3 major reasons that one could argue FOR hunting : to keep the population down, especially of deer and turkeys; for food; and for sport. Don't get mad at me: these aren't my excuses, I'm just saying this is someone would argue...
20I think gun control is a very emotional issue. Guns are scary, and way too many do die unnecessarily from gun-related deaths.
But it's not a cut and dry issue for me. I wouldn't want to live in a country where only the government and criminals had guns. (Call me jaded, but I don't trust "big brother" to always do what's right). In DC, handguns are banned, and there are still a huge number of gun related deaths in the city. Criminals know how to get guns.
Additionally, there are very strong statistics that come out in favor of letting people have guns. Crime actually spikes HIGHER in cities that ban handguns, because criminals now don't have to worry about the average responsible citizen being able to protect themselves.
Obviously, no one needs a oozi, there should be waiting periods, and a strict registration process. I'm very pro gun control, but the total banning of guns just doesn't make sense to me personally.
I mean, in the abstract, if the world had no weapons at all, we'd have fewer deaths and life would be great. We'd have hand to hand combat and definitely fewer people would die. But sadly that is not a state we'll probably ever be in in our lives, or the future.
21well put, popgoestheworld
22I agree with pop. I live outside D.C., and the handgun ban hasn't done any good. I think you should have to get a license to own a gun, just like you do for a car. Take and pass safety courses and tests, then you can have your weapon. I do not think that making gun ownership illegal will have any kind of positive impact, for all the reasons stated above.
23the crime rate is considerably lower in canada and i think it's because it's so much harder to have a gun in here.
24As a student from Virginia Tech, i think if the government is going to allow people to have guns they should have more restrictions on the people allowed to purchase the guns. Luckily they are implacing these restrictions (i kno certain mentally ill people aren't able to purchase handguns, and dealers have to look more into the medical history of a person). even with this, i think the age to carry a weapon should be raised to atleast 21... if not 25 or older. It doesn't make sense if at 18 years old a person can't drink alcohol but they can own a handgun.
another point.. if people think that its so important to protect themselves, they should use tasers or something that could disable an attacker for a shorter period of time. this way authorities can be called and handle the situation.
25I strongly agree about the right to privacy. Yes, they alluded to it, but it would make life so much easier to just have it spelled out. Of course then people would argue WHAT you can keep private but at least there would be a standard.
In response to the 2nd amendement, personally not a fan. But when you look at how much money the gun lobby contributes to campaigns v. the antigun lobby it is utterly shocking. The NRA pretty much can throw an election through the money they contribute. What that says about our campaign process and our morals is just sad (not only bc it relates to guns but as a whole). I think that if everyone realized that we're not going to ban guns anytime soon and focused on CONTROL issues, we'd be a lot better off.
Also, FYI states already have their own constitutions, they just don't supercede what is in THE constitution. That whole supremacy clause.
26Post New Comment
Please share your opinion with our community, but make sure it is on topic and follows our Community Rules. We moderate comments and prohibit personal attacks, threats, spam, lewd images, or the promotion of your personal website.