>

Lol which bill was that?
/u/gothicgamelabs (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >


3) The constitution can be amended, meaning something that is unconstitutional can be made constitutional.

Your view really can't be changed because it is simply a statement of fact:  "Something that is unconstitutional now won't be unconstitutional if we change the constitution to make it constitutional".  Yep.
It's like looking at a house that is painted gree and saying that it's wrong to call it green because we could paint it red and then it wouldn't be green anymore.  Cool.

2) The constitution is outdated. It was written about 250 years ago and supported the enslavement of Blacks and the second-class citizenship of women. We should not be treating it like some infallible document.

The U.S. Constitution was originally written 250 years ago, but it's wrong to say it is a 250 year old document.  We essentially re-ratify the Constitution every day that we don't amend it.  Since we didn't amend it yesterday, we essentially looked at, as a nation, and said "yep, we're still good with it.  We'll take another look tomorrow".
Just because you don't agree with specific aspects of the Constitution doesn't mean they should be changed.  The method for changing the Constitution is spelled out within the Constitution.  And if we as a country want to change it, we can. >


"Big tech censoring conservative voices is unconstitutional," is just a false statement.

True, but people were saying the government was in on it, which would be unconstitutional.

It was written about 250 years ago and supported the enslavement of Blacks and the second-class citizenship of women.

We fought a civil war over the first thing and fixed the second. 

The constitution can be amended, meaning something that is unconstitutional can be made constitutional.

Which is incredibly difficult, on purpose.  You would need 38 states to agree to the amendment.

We can't ban assault weapons because it would be violating the 2nd amendment?

We can't ban assault weapons because no one can agree on what an assault weapon is. >


True, but people were saying the government was in on it, which would be unconstitutional.

Did the government pass any laws about it? No? Then it wasn't unconstitutional.

We fought a civil war over the first thing and fixed the second.

That supports my point.

We can't ban assault weapons because no one can agree on what an assault weapon is.

This is another bullshit reason. Obviously we could just make a list of weapons and ban them. Obviously. >


Did the government pass any laws about it? No? Then it wasn't unconstitutional.

You could make an argument it falls under compelled speech.  

Obviously we could just make a list of weapons and ban them.

Banning guns by name doesn't work.  The just tried this recently.  The bill banned a gun on one page, then unbanned it 10 pages later.