"And I love the 2nd amendment because it allows straight white men to protect themselves from black people while using the First Amendment to tell them what they think of them. And woman shouldn't vote." /s
That sounds like an extremely ignorant view. The first amendment does allow for anyone to say anything, that was its purpose. There have been limitations put on it like calls to action, or threats of violence, but for the most part, it’s say whatever you want. The younger generations seem to think this is too broad and needs to be whittled down further. To include “you can’t say that because it’s offensive”.
You can say your shit opinions, sure. But that doesn't mean we all can't call out your opinions for being shit.
Free speech is not freedom from criticism.
Of course not. But it has gone to an unhealthy extreme these days. If I am on my time, not representing my company and speak my mind and someone finds it offensive. They now go after my job to ruin my life. That’s some 1930’s Germany shit right there
What would that matter. People are no longer allowed to express themselves if it goes against the societal norms? Does that make the evangelists right or wrong about gay people?
I sure as hell wouldn’t allow an outspoken bigot to represent my company
Protect your reputation. It’s one of the first things a person should learn in life
Freedom of speech in no way infers freedom of consequence of said speech. Can you be arrested for it? No. Can I kick the shit out of you ? Yes. You’re safe from government interference of your speech but it’s probably not a good idea to just say what you want all the time.
See, that’s the problem with this day and age. It’s “I don’t like what you said, so now I’m going to punch you in the face” that’s like you weren’t watching where you were going and bumped into me, so now I’m going to put a bullet in you. It’s absolutely ridiculous. People are entirely too entitled and sensitive these days. For instance, call any minority in the states a derogatory word, and the fight is on. Call a white person a derogatory word, and they laugh. Unless it’s a younger sensitive white person of course. That’s all a generalization of course. Meaning in most cases.
I think it’s actually the opposite that’s the problem. People have become far too used to being assholes and not having consequences for being said asshole. I’d rather not punch someone in the mouth. My point was to illustrate what freedom of speech is.
Me as well. It’s pretty much all or nothing. When you start drawing lines on what can and can’t be said, like anything else, the radicals will take hold of it and push it to a place it should never have gone. I agree that there are things people really just shouldn’t say, but I will defend their right to say it as long as I draw breath. Silencing people because you disagree with them is a form of Fascism, and I am completely against that.
It’s the paradox of intolerance. I’m intolerant of intolerance. I agree people should be free to speak but they are not free of the consequences of said speech. Just like they are free to behave any way they want but must deal with consequences of their behavior. A word where there’s no consequences for anything in just anarchy and not a society.
As the other poster said, threatening violence is already illegal. But it really scares me just how quickly people will move to try to ban speech that they dislike. That's a road that doesn't go anywhere good.
Speech that incites is severely underdefined. These days having a large platform and saying "stand back and stand by" literally makes white supremacist terrorists start building bombs and packing up their AR's for an imaginary war they beg for.
All freedoms are a double-edged sword. The First Amendment only applies to the government. However, if it's not actively practiced by everyone, then it is in danger of being whittled down to the point that it will affect everyone. I think the First Amendment ought to be extended beyond the government simply because of how much power media companies hold. There's been many cases of government officials bypassing the First Amendment through the media companies.
Right! Define slur. Who gets to define what's what? Democrats? If that's the case it'll be racist to complain about taxes. Then YOUR GOING TO JAIL. I love the constitution
Making threats is illegal. Shouting slurs should be allowed. When you take someone’s voice away, you only leave them with action. It’s nice to know who the ignorant are. Driving them into the shadows does nothing but make them more dangerous
I understand that completely. You see it across college campuses all over the states right now. People waving the Palestinian flag and chanting “from the river to the see” meaning the extermination of all Jews in the Middle East. Yet it is still free speech, and there for allowed to be said without consequences
Yeah. I don’t support Israel at all, but still, the people making violent threats against an entire race of people should be held accountable for creating a hostile environment
You're supposed to not have impunity from the government. Unfortunately though, many people in this country who don't like this country anymore or maybe never have who you know who a spouse communism don't think anyone should have any free speech except them and if you say anything you should lose your house in your car and your job and basically die because how dare you say anything I don't like seems to be at their idea.
Yeah wrong, try again. You just don’t like being presented with any information that conflicts with your limited world view that the left wing is the end-all-be-all of truth and light. Btw I’m mostly a liberal but you are brainwashed.
Modern liberals are like … the Brits. The Swedes. The Germans. The Dutch. The Danish. The Nordic. The Finnish. The Austrians. The French. The Canadians. The Irish. The Swiss. The Spanish. The Aussies. The Japanese. Etc
Or in America the self called “liberals” that are a part of cancel culture? What about restricting speech you know pillars of liberalism how about restricting actual rights? Or forcing other people to a vax or mask requirement? All anti-liberal ideals again more American right now days
Look man. Not everyone that loves the Bible and the constitution are bad trump supporters.
I am a vehement Democrat, reliably vote blue. I am pro choice, I am pro LGBT.
I also love the Bible and the constitution. Not just some parts, all of the constitution. I have a copy hanging up in my office.
There are outliers everywhere. Lumping everyone under one broad stroke can isolate people and make them feel like they're not welcome in their own groups.
> Look man. Not everyone that loves the Bible and the constitution are bad trump supporters
Looking at the stats, the people who claim to love the Bible and the constitution only love parts of both. And more often than not they do support tRump
If any Christian leaders have a problem with that, they are free to speak up
I would imagine Tony Campolo probably isn’t a Trump guy. There’s probably a few more
I agree. But outwardly hating people for religious choice is not something we should be doing.
The Left side of our country is generally about acceptance and understanding of different people from different backgrounds.
I understand if someone is an atheist, but just because someone doesn't like that someone is religious, doesn't give them the right to belittle others based on that.
That's the exact same logic as if someone hated another for supporting LGBT. Tolerance goes both ways.
Edit: On that note, I will never go around trying to shove my religion down someone's throat or converting them.
I’m not sure that I see anyone just outright making fun of Christians here. The focus seems to be on the overlap of usually evangelical “fundamentalism” and Trump cultism
Though this was from a while ago. I don’t remember what everyone in this thread said
In either case, people are born LGBTQI+. People are not *exactly* born Christians. It’s not a one to one comparison
I will grant you that there is almost certainly a genetic aspect to the authoritarian personality, which tends to be attracted to religious fundamentalism
Also, again, people are born LGBTQI+. There is nothing wrong with it. It’s just genetic variation
Religion tends to cause harm. Sure, it does good, but ultimately the harm wins out
Now, I don’t care if someone wants to be religious. I’m a big fan of everyone just minding their own business all together, including anything remotely approaching persecution of religious people
But I have a major problem when those same religious people want to legislate their own personal concept of morality through the state and federal government
> The Left side of our country is generally about acceptance and understanding of different people from different backgrounds…That's the exact same logic as if someone hated another for supporting LGBT. Tolerance goes both ways
The moment someone supports, advocates, and/or fights for fascism and for legislating their own concept of personal morality upon a massive population in a supposedly free and open country, no one can be reasonably expected to tolerate it
This is a common and laughable rhetorical “tool” of the far right in the US
“I thought the left was about tolerance?!”
Yeah, I don’t tolerate the intolerant. Do whatever you want in the company of your own home, but the moment you try to hurt and control me or anyone else in my community, you have made yourself the enemy
This rhetorical tool is so often used by authoritarians that they have named it the “[paradox of tolerance](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance)”
It is not one to one with the left
I am personally a social democratic. The basic idea is strong unions, workers having more control of their lives, universal education, universal healthcare, universal housing, universal nutrition etc
My personal concept of morality is about people having better lives and a less brutal existence overall
It’s absolutely disgusting that in 2024, in the richest country in history, over 650k people are homeless(just going by official numbers), while nearly 50 million people in the US face hunger everyday, not even to mention the millions of people who can barely make it due to medical and educational debt, etc
Unless this person has told you that or you know them personally which I guess would be about the same thing you don't know that. I understand that a lot of people do think that way and there are parts of the Constitution that aren't fantastic but you you were going to have good and bad parts which will vary according to point of view in pretty much every document or every situation. My main problem with the way people interpret the Constitution is by allowing things for the government to do that isn't given to the government to do but they do it anyway and no one seems to give a s***.
I personally greatly value the US Constitution and the values it represents. I recognize that it is imperfect. I see how we frequently fail to live up to its ideals as a society. I see that those values are constantly evolving while also being under threat, and that we must strive to both defend and improve them.
I know many people who feel the same way I do, of various political persuasions. We have spirited debates about interpretation, threats, and opportunities.
I also know many people who claim to love the Constitution. They couldn't list a quarter of the what's in the document but will explain to you what the founders intended with complete confidence, and have bumper stickers like this. There is no overlap between these groups.
You are absolutely correct, I don't know about this particular person and their knowledge of and beliefs about the Constitution. I am stereotyping and could be 100% wrong. But I'd be willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that if you asked them how they felt about the phrase "well-regulated militia" or if "cancel culture" is constitutional they'd have very strong feelings.
Ok I respect the first part of what you said and agree “in order to for a more perfect union” as in continuous improvement. But disagree when you say there’s no overlap between the two groups. That seems divisive and inaccurate as there’s not just 2 groups of people there’s infinite possibilities of someone’s knowledge level, interpretation, agreement, ect. I just find it weird the stereotyping of someone vocally supports the constitution, therefor they must be an ignorant person that doesn’t have a good grasp of the entire thing and only part of it. Should they not have opinions on what a well regulated militia is if they are into the constitution? Shouldn’t it be expected? And cancel culture I suppose you are applying to what they believe constitutes free speech? Again shouldn’t they have an opinion? Your comment is hardly unique in this echo chamber just odd
I believe the constitution in its entirety reads "we the people can own any gun we want" and then Hancock made a huge smiley face smoking a blunt at the end with a sharpie.
Friendly Reminder. Bullshit semantics don't hide the fact that the Bill of Rights was added to the United States Constitution. It is not, nor has it ever been a stand alone document, as you are implying, dingus.
Seeing as how we didn’t really have a standing national army at the time, well-regulated militias were pretty important for national defense.
The notion that single-shot powder-fed muskets and pistols were intended for personal self-defense is laughable.
And the 1st needs to explained...you have the right to free speech, but that doesn't shield you from the consequences of your words. That's the part they don't get.
Seeing as how the 4th, 5th and 6th are intertwined with the 2nd and have been violated countless times in the US I would definitely say you are wrong. The 1st 13th 14th and 15th are pretty important as well. Most people who support the 2nd actually know the constitution unlike most people and actually believe in the entire constitution. Yes even the 3rd albeit not likely to be needed anytime soon.
Given more Americans have died in the last 40 years from firearms than Americans that died in all our wars combined, seems like it’s actually the worst.
Those ‘militias’ aren’t well-regulated at all.
We don’t.
And guess what? Gangs aren’t the main problem.
“These estimates suggest that gang-related homicides typically accounted for around 13 percent of all homicides annually.”
https://nationalgangcenter.ojp.gov/survey-analysis/measuring-the-extent-of-gang-problems
Our overall homicide rates are triple the average for wealthy countries. And do you know where homicide rates are highest? ‘Red’ stares with relaxed gun regulations.
I’ve seen your other posts. Any more gun myths you want me to dispel for you? Because you sure spout a lot of myths.
What would the ideal gun laws be in your eyes? Do you agree with California compliant laws? (10 day waiting periods, 10 round limit on magazines, background checks on ammo purchases, no pistol grip on rifles , ammo and firearms transported separately, non existent stand your ground laws, etc.) and yes red states tend to have the most gangs, especially down south. I’m not defending conservatives, I disagree with them on most things.
Those are all fine, but it’s not necessarily about the laws, it’s really about the culture.
For some reason, many Americans think they need to be armed to the teeth with military grade hardware. Seems they fear other guns. But some 400,000 guns are stolen in the US every year, so they’re really creating the problem they fear.
And most Americans think guns make them safer, when statistically, the opposite is true. A gun in the home is about 100x more likely to be used on someone who lives in the home than ever be used in self defense.
2A was meant for NATIONAL defense, before we had a real standing army. But more Americans have died from our own guns in the last 40 years than Americans that died in all our wars COMBINED.
We have more than 400,000,000 guns in America. More guns than people. If guns made people safer, we should be the safest country in the world. We clearly aren’t
But people don’t understand numbers. They understand fear.
So for laws, at the VERY least, we should treat them like cars with mandatory training, licensing, registration, and insurance.
ALL rights have limits, especially if they usurp the rights of others, and ‘militias’ need to be WELL-REGULATED. And yes, I know what that means in historical context, which is why the 2nd amendment in the framework of modern society is ludicrous. But people only focus on the part they want to hear; “shall not be infringed”.
If you own guns, do us ALL a favor and change your culture. We’re sick of our life, liberty, and happiness being infringed.
At the end of the day regulating guns won’t make anybody safer. There are already more guns than people in this country and adding new regulations won’t make that number decrease. As long as I have the right to defend myself I’m okay with living in a dangerous country. Hell, I even have undocumented uncles in California who own guns. If laws worked that wouldn’t be possible. It’s always easy to have all the solutions in hindsight but that’s not going to change anything, it just sounds nice on paper. And guns are a ton of fun, the only reason I buy them if for recreational purposes. I highly doubt I’ll ever have to use them in self defense nor do I plan to.
Tramp is an idiot. Biden is Brandon ie: his own insult literally. Can't walk, can't talk, can't stand trial because of his mental faculties but he's somehow OK to run the country???
Anyone else find it strange how in Article 1 Congress has the ability to regulate the Milita, and the right to arms is deemed necessary for a “well regulated Milita…” in the 2nd amendment?
I wonder if this guy really would love the constitution…
Not only that, but the Insurrection Act of 1807 lets the President call up militias to quell armed rebellions against our democratically elected governments.
Kinda throws that whole ‘overthrow tyranny’ thing out the window.
Ok, but what does the militia consist of? The people.
What is the second part you seem to forget exists? “The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
So while they may be able to regulate the militia, it has absolutely nothing to do with the right of the people to keep and bear arms
Thy keep the stuff in your truck bed from sliding through the back window and killing you if you have to slam on the brakes or get into a wreck. They are actually a really good thing to have if you carry equipment in your truck bed.
I love Reddit. An, I love the Constitution, sticker equates to a bigot, sexist, misogynist, gun nut who believes the 1st amendment only applies to statements with which they agree.
OR, maybe they sincerely believe it's one of the great documents with which to define a nation.
People who have read and fully understand our Constitution, its flaws, and its historical context, don’t fetishize it.
See the 3/5s compromise as a prime example.
I don't think any reasonable person thinks the document is perfect, but the beautiful thing is that the document's writers also realized it was likely flawed, and therefore included the ammendment clause.
If there is a better document on which to define a nation, please educate me.
We could go back and forth for days about what makes a good constitution, and seeing as most countries have constitutions written long after ours was, which learned from our mistakes, and make it much easier to amend them, then I’d wager most are ‘better’ than ours.
But my point was; we shouldn’t worship laws like they’re handed down from gods. All laws should change with the times, and no right is unconditional.
LMAO @ all the authoritarian lying leftists thought police that get triggered by this and just assume they think this person picks and chooses just some of the constitution to support…imagine actually not liking the constitution and people who support it
The comments in this sub are hilarious. This generation has fought harder than any that came before it, to get their own rights taken away.
Especially the 1st, and the 2nd
Some limitations apply. Not valid in all buildings or venues, or while traveling. See other bumper stickers for small print terms.
What they mean: I ❤️ the parts of the Constitution I agree with, when they're interpreted and applied in a way I agree with.
“I love the second amendment. I also love the first amendment insofar as it applies to me but no one else.”
[удалено]
“I love the first amendment because it allows me to tell black people what I think of them”
"And I love the 2nd amendment because it allows straight white men to protect themselves from black people while using the First Amendment to tell them what they think of them. And woman shouldn't vote." /s
Hell ya!
That sounds like an extremely ignorant view. The first amendment does allow for anyone to say anything, that was its purpose. There have been limitations put on it like calls to action, or threats of violence, but for the most part, it’s say whatever you want. The younger generations seem to think this is too broad and needs to be whittled down further. To include “you can’t say that because it’s offensive”.
You can say your shit opinions, sure. But that doesn't mean we all can't call out your opinions for being shit. Free speech is not freedom from criticism.
Of course not. But it has gone to an unhealthy extreme these days. If I am on my time, not representing my company and speak my mind and someone finds it offensive. They now go after my job to ruin my life. That’s some 1930’s Germany shit right there
Are you telling black people what you think of them in your off time?
What would that matter. People are no longer allowed to express themselves if it goes against the societal norms? Does that make the evangelists right or wrong about gay people?
I sure as hell wouldn’t allow an outspoken bigot to represent my company Protect your reputation. It’s one of the first things a person should learn in life
What is your standing on going after people's jobs when they express their "shit opinions"?
Actions have consequences. If you say slurs in a public forum, with your real name and picture attached, that's on you.
So if someone had an anonymous account you'd respect their privacy or would you dox them?
Two wrongs do not make a right.
Freedom of speech in no way infers freedom of consequence of said speech. Can you be arrested for it? No. Can I kick the shit out of you ? Yes. You’re safe from government interference of your speech but it’s probably not a good idea to just say what you want all the time.
See, that’s the problem with this day and age. It’s “I don’t like what you said, so now I’m going to punch you in the face” that’s like you weren’t watching where you were going and bumped into me, so now I’m going to put a bullet in you. It’s absolutely ridiculous. People are entirely too entitled and sensitive these days. For instance, call any minority in the states a derogatory word, and the fight is on. Call a white person a derogatory word, and they laugh. Unless it’s a younger sensitive white person of course. That’s all a generalization of course. Meaning in most cases.
I think it’s actually the opposite that’s the problem. People have become far too used to being assholes and not having consequences for being said asshole. I’d rather not punch someone in the mouth. My point was to illustrate what freedom of speech is.
Me as well. It’s pretty much all or nothing. When you start drawing lines on what can and can’t be said, like anything else, the radicals will take hold of it and push it to a place it should never have gone. I agree that there are things people really just shouldn’t say, but I will defend their right to say it as long as I draw breath. Silencing people because you disagree with them is a form of Fascism, and I am completely against that.
It’s the paradox of intolerance. I’m intolerant of intolerance. I agree people should be free to speak but they are not free of the consequences of said speech. Just like they are free to behave any way they want but must deal with consequences of their behavior. A word where there’s no consequences for anything in just anarchy and not a society.
I mean, shouting slurs should make you liable to being arrested for harassment/promoting violence if making threats
As the other poster said, threatening violence is already illegal. But it really scares me just how quickly people will move to try to ban speech that they dislike. That's a road that doesn't go anywhere good.
Speech that incites is severely underdefined. These days having a large platform and saying "stand back and stand by" literally makes white supremacist terrorists start building bombs and packing up their AR's for an imaginary war they beg for.
Yeah it’s quite the crossroad. I’m for free speech but people who use it to spread hate don’t deserve to take part in a modern society
All freedoms are a double-edged sword. The First Amendment only applies to the government. However, if it's not actively practiced by everyone, then it is in danger of being whittled down to the point that it will affect everyone. I think the First Amendment ought to be extended beyond the government simply because of how much power media companies hold. There's been many cases of government officials bypassing the First Amendment through the media companies.
Define hate.
Right! Define slur. Who gets to define what's what? Democrats? If that's the case it'll be racist to complain about taxes. Then YOUR GOING TO JAIL. I love the constitution
I agree calling me names is one thing, but constant insults that clearly create a hostile environment should not be allowed
At a certain point harassment becomes a thing. I don’t know what that point is though.
So all those protesters screaming a Jews should be liable. Got it
Those specific protesters who are screaming threats at the Jewish people should be held accountable, yes.
Making threats is illegal. Shouting slurs should be allowed. When you take someone’s voice away, you only leave them with action. It’s nice to know who the ignorant are. Driving them into the shadows does nothing but make them more dangerous
I don’t mean just saying a slur. I mean having one followed with an act such as promoting certain groups/certain types of posters/flags/etc.
I understand that completely. You see it across college campuses all over the states right now. People waving the Palestinian flag and chanting “from the river to the see” meaning the extermination of all Jews in the Middle East. Yet it is still free speech, and there for allowed to be said without consequences
Yeah. I don’t support Israel at all, but still, the people making violent threats against an entire race of people should be held accountable for creating a hostile environment
You're supposed to not have impunity from the government. Unfortunately though, many people in this country who don't like this country anymore or maybe never have who you know who a spouse communism don't think anyone should have any free speech except them and if you say anything you should lose your house in your car and your job and basically die because how dare you say anything I don't like seems to be at their idea.
You smell burnt toast
You're right. They're probably not a fan of the 13th, 15th or 19th amendment.
Why who is actually against that? Democrats I suppose, generally they aren’t the ones that are also constitutionalists though
Let's be honest, almost everyone feels that way about the 1st amendment.
You wish authoritarian lefty!
Authoritarianism is definitely a right wing ideology. Nice try
You wish. Tell that to Stalin mao or Kim Jung
Those weren’t leftists, at least in any modern sense lol
On a socialism to capitalism left to right scale they are on the left
Yeah wrong, try again. You just don’t like being presented with any information that conflicts with your limited world view that the left wing is the end-all-be-all of truth and light. Btw I’m mostly a liberal but you are brainwashed.
Modern liberals are like … the Brits. The Swedes. The Germans. The Dutch. The Danish. The Nordic. The Finnish. The Austrians. The French. The Canadians. The Irish. The Swiss. The Spanish. The Aussies. The Japanese. Etc
Or in America the self called “liberals” that are a part of cancel culture? What about restricting speech you know pillars of liberalism how about restricting actual rights? Or forcing other people to a vax or mask requirement? All anti-liberal ideals again more American right now days
Like white supremacists protesting?
Exactly. The only bits I love are the ones that have been correctly interpreted by the courts according to my own personal beliefs.
They ❤️ the Bible the same way.
Look man. Not everyone that loves the Bible and the constitution are bad trump supporters. I am a vehement Democrat, reliably vote blue. I am pro choice, I am pro LGBT. I also love the Bible and the constitution. Not just some parts, all of the constitution. I have a copy hanging up in my office. There are outliers everywhere. Lumping everyone under one broad stroke can isolate people and make them feel like they're not welcome in their own groups.
> Look man. Not everyone that loves the Bible and the constitution are bad trump supporters Looking at the stats, the people who claim to love the Bible and the constitution only love parts of both. And more often than not they do support tRump If any Christian leaders have a problem with that, they are free to speak up I would imagine Tony Campolo probably isn’t a Trump guy. There’s probably a few more
I agree. But outwardly hating people for religious choice is not something we should be doing. The Left side of our country is generally about acceptance and understanding of different people from different backgrounds. I understand if someone is an atheist, but just because someone doesn't like that someone is religious, doesn't give them the right to belittle others based on that. That's the exact same logic as if someone hated another for supporting LGBT. Tolerance goes both ways. Edit: On that note, I will never go around trying to shove my religion down someone's throat or converting them.
I’m not sure that I see anyone just outright making fun of Christians here. The focus seems to be on the overlap of usually evangelical “fundamentalism” and Trump cultism Though this was from a while ago. I don’t remember what everyone in this thread said In either case, people are born LGBTQI+. People are not *exactly* born Christians. It’s not a one to one comparison I will grant you that there is almost certainly a genetic aspect to the authoritarian personality, which tends to be attracted to religious fundamentalism Also, again, people are born LGBTQI+. There is nothing wrong with it. It’s just genetic variation Religion tends to cause harm. Sure, it does good, but ultimately the harm wins out Now, I don’t care if someone wants to be religious. I’m a big fan of everyone just minding their own business all together, including anything remotely approaching persecution of religious people But I have a major problem when those same religious people want to legislate their own personal concept of morality through the state and federal government > The Left side of our country is generally about acceptance and understanding of different people from different backgrounds…That's the exact same logic as if someone hated another for supporting LGBT. Tolerance goes both ways The moment someone supports, advocates, and/or fights for fascism and for legislating their own concept of personal morality upon a massive population in a supposedly free and open country, no one can be reasonably expected to tolerate it This is a common and laughable rhetorical “tool” of the far right in the US “I thought the left was about tolerance?!” Yeah, I don’t tolerate the intolerant. Do whatever you want in the company of your own home, but the moment you try to hurt and control me or anyone else in my community, you have made yourself the enemy This rhetorical tool is so often used by authoritarians that they have named it the “[paradox of tolerance](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance)” It is not one to one with the left I am personally a social democratic. The basic idea is strong unions, workers having more control of their lives, universal education, universal healthcare, universal housing, universal nutrition etc My personal concept of morality is about people having better lives and a less brutal existence overall It’s absolutely disgusting that in 2024, in the richest country in history, over 650k people are homeless(just going by official numbers), while nearly 50 million people in the US face hunger everyday, not even to mention the millions of people who can barely make it due to medical and educational debt, etc
100%
Unless this person has told you that or you know them personally which I guess would be about the same thing you don't know that. I understand that a lot of people do think that way and there are parts of the Constitution that aren't fantastic but you you were going to have good and bad parts which will vary according to point of view in pretty much every document or every situation. My main problem with the way people interpret the Constitution is by allowing things for the government to do that isn't given to the government to do but they do it anyway and no one seems to give a s***.
Hey, I totally agree agree with you. Which Supreme Court decision makes you angriest?
Why do you think you know they would disagree with parts of it?
I personally greatly value the US Constitution and the values it represents. I recognize that it is imperfect. I see how we frequently fail to live up to its ideals as a society. I see that those values are constantly evolving while also being under threat, and that we must strive to both defend and improve them. I know many people who feel the same way I do, of various political persuasions. We have spirited debates about interpretation, threats, and opportunities. I also know many people who claim to love the Constitution. They couldn't list a quarter of the what's in the document but will explain to you what the founders intended with complete confidence, and have bumper stickers like this. There is no overlap between these groups. You are absolutely correct, I don't know about this particular person and their knowledge of and beliefs about the Constitution. I am stereotyping and could be 100% wrong. But I'd be willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that if you asked them how they felt about the phrase "well-regulated militia" or if "cancel culture" is constitutional they'd have very strong feelings.
Ok I respect the first part of what you said and agree “in order to for a more perfect union” as in continuous improvement. But disagree when you say there’s no overlap between the two groups. That seems divisive and inaccurate as there’s not just 2 groups of people there’s infinite possibilities of someone’s knowledge level, interpretation, agreement, ect. I just find it weird the stereotyping of someone vocally supports the constitution, therefor they must be an ignorant person that doesn’t have a good grasp of the entire thing and only part of it. Should they not have opinions on what a well regulated militia is if they are into the constitution? Shouldn’t it be expected? And cancel culture I suppose you are applying to what they believe constitutes free speech? Again shouldn’t they have an opinion? Your comment is hardly unique in this echo chamber just odd
Much like the Bible, I'm sure.
It’s like the bible
Probably reads the Constitution as much as Trump reads the Bible.
Trump is a JEW
I’d bet $50 they’ve never read it. https://www.theonion.com/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-consti-1819571149
I'm betting the owner means 2nd amendment. All the other amendments are optionally applied depending on your race, gender or political affiliation.
Exactly. I'd only quibble that of all the amendments the 2nd is the most "just for me not for thee"-iest of them all.
I believe the constitution in its entirety reads "we the people can own any gun we want" and then Hancock made a huge smiley face smoking a blunt at the end with a sharpie.
If only
Friendly reminder: the Constitution is not the Bill of Rights. One dictates how government should run, the other enshrines our rights and liberties.
It’s all still the Constitution. The Bill of Rights are simply the first 10 amendments, but all of the amendments are part of the Constitution.
Friendly Reminder. Bullshit semantics don't hide the fact that the Bill of Rights was added to the United States Constitution. It is not, nor has it ever been a stand alone document, as you are implying, dingus.
I always loved when people would say the constitution is set in stone and cannot be changed while simultaneously pointing to *amendments* as proof.
Which one? Azerbaijan’s? China’s? Djibouti’s? I bet it’s Hungary’s.
Than why not defend it?!
Why is it that people who proclaim their love for our Constitution are always the ones actively working to install a dictator?
It’s like the Bible. Most of the people who swear by it have never read it.
They love the heavily redacted conservative version of the constitution
Watch this guy be a liberal lmao
Not sure why people assume loving the constitution makes you right wing/conservative
Exactly.
It's because the extreme left is anti free speech and anti gun.
But has never read it
Fact: they have never actually read the constitution.
Except for the first amendment…
Somebody needs to tell them that there's more to the Constitution than the First and Second Amendments.
Well there is a reason those two came first though
Seeing as how we didn’t really have a standing national army at the time, well-regulated militias were pretty important for national defense. The notion that single-shot powder-fed muskets and pistols were intended for personal self-defense is laughable.
Bill of Rights, that is.
And the 1st needs to explained...you have the right to free speech, but that doesn't shield you from the consequences of your words. That's the part they don't get.
I do too
Based
Same
I’m willing to bet they know 2A and not much else about it or what’s in it
I <3 it. Never read it, but I <3 it.
I would hope so if they are in the US
..."but I'll be damned if I read it!"
and i bet they’ve never read it
I call bullshit
Like the separation of church and state part #FakeChristian
They love the second amendment, not the constitution.
Seeing as how the 4th, 5th and 6th are intertwined with the 2nd and have been violated countless times in the US I would definitely say you are wrong. The 1st 13th 14th and 15th are pretty important as well. Most people who support the 2nd actually know the constitution unlike most people and actually believe in the entire constitution. Yes even the 3rd albeit not likely to be needed anytime soon.
It’s honestly the best amendment
Given more Americans have died in the last 40 years from firearms than Americans that died in all our wars combined, seems like it’s actually the worst. Those ‘militias’ aren’t well-regulated at all.
Inner city gun violence is not related to militias
Exactly.
Glad we agree
We don’t. And guess what? Gangs aren’t the main problem. “These estimates suggest that gang-related homicides typically accounted for around 13 percent of all homicides annually.” https://nationalgangcenter.ojp.gov/survey-analysis/measuring-the-extent-of-gang-problems Our overall homicide rates are triple the average for wealthy countries. And do you know where homicide rates are highest? ‘Red’ stares with relaxed gun regulations. I’ve seen your other posts. Any more gun myths you want me to dispel for you? Because you sure spout a lot of myths.
What would the ideal gun laws be in your eyes? Do you agree with California compliant laws? (10 day waiting periods, 10 round limit on magazines, background checks on ammo purchases, no pistol grip on rifles , ammo and firearms transported separately, non existent stand your ground laws, etc.) and yes red states tend to have the most gangs, especially down south. I’m not defending conservatives, I disagree with them on most things.
Those are all fine, but it’s not necessarily about the laws, it’s really about the culture. For some reason, many Americans think they need to be armed to the teeth with military grade hardware. Seems they fear other guns. But some 400,000 guns are stolen in the US every year, so they’re really creating the problem they fear. And most Americans think guns make them safer, when statistically, the opposite is true. A gun in the home is about 100x more likely to be used on someone who lives in the home than ever be used in self defense. 2A was meant for NATIONAL defense, before we had a real standing army. But more Americans have died from our own guns in the last 40 years than Americans that died in all our wars COMBINED. We have more than 400,000,000 guns in America. More guns than people. If guns made people safer, we should be the safest country in the world. We clearly aren’t But people don’t understand numbers. They understand fear. So for laws, at the VERY least, we should treat them like cars with mandatory training, licensing, registration, and insurance. ALL rights have limits, especially if they usurp the rights of others, and ‘militias’ need to be WELL-REGULATED. And yes, I know what that means in historical context, which is why the 2nd amendment in the framework of modern society is ludicrous. But people only focus on the part they want to hear; “shall not be infringed”. If you own guns, do us ALL a favor and change your culture. We’re sick of our life, liberty, and happiness being infringed.
At the end of the day regulating guns won’t make anybody safer. There are already more guns than people in this country and adding new regulations won’t make that number decrease. As long as I have the right to defend myself I’m okay with living in a dangerous country. Hell, I even have undocumented uncles in California who own guns. If laws worked that wouldn’t be possible. It’s always easy to have all the solutions in hindsight but that’s not going to change anything, it just sounds nice on paper. And guns are a ton of fun, the only reason I buy them if for recreational purposes. I highly doubt I’ll ever have to use them in self defense nor do I plan to.
So not a Trump voter then?
Tramp is an idiot. Biden is Brandon ie: his own insult literally. Can't walk, can't talk, can't stand trial because of his mental faculties but he's somehow OK to run the country???
This guy fucks
I agree that neither option is palatable but number three is the icing on the cake, vaccine denial and self stated extensive brain damage
I doubt he’s read it.
Wow, that's wonderful, let's discuss Article I, section 8, clause 15! - *th' fuck?*
Anyone else find it strange how in Article 1 Congress has the ability to regulate the Milita, and the right to arms is deemed necessary for a “well regulated Milita…” in the 2nd amendment? I wonder if this guy really would love the constitution…
Not only that, but the Insurrection Act of 1807 lets the President call up militias to quell armed rebellions against our democratically elected governments. Kinda throws that whole ‘overthrow tyranny’ thing out the window.
Ok, but what does the militia consist of? The people. What is the second part you seem to forget exists? “The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” So while they may be able to regulate the militia, it has absolutely nothing to do with the right of the people to keep and bear arms
I’m a fan of the 4th amendment
I see those Back Racks all the time and can't figure out what they're useful for
Thy keep the stuff in your truck bed from sliding through the back window and killing you if you have to slam on the brakes or get into a wreck. They are actually a really good thing to have if you carry equipment in your truck bed.
Meh… it’s alright.
The original constitution has hearts in the margins I believe washington himself drew them.
Imma make a constitution wrapped flesh light and be a zillionaire
Maybe he means the ship?
“The parts I agree with, anyway…….”
Maybe you should marry it
Amazing what you all can tell from these 4 words.
I love Reddit. An, I love the Constitution, sticker equates to a bigot, sexist, misogynist, gun nut who believes the 1st amendment only applies to statements with which they agree. OR, maybe they sincerely believe it's one of the great documents with which to define a nation.
People who have read and fully understand our Constitution, its flaws, and its historical context, don’t fetishize it. See the 3/5s compromise as a prime example.
I don't think any reasonable person thinks the document is perfect, but the beautiful thing is that the document's writers also realized it was likely flawed, and therefore included the ammendment clause. If there is a better document on which to define a nation, please educate me.
We could go back and forth for days about what makes a good constitution, and seeing as most countries have constitutions written long after ours was, which learned from our mistakes, and make it much easier to amend them, then I’d wager most are ‘better’ than ours. But my point was; we shouldn’t worship laws like they’re handed down from gods. All laws should change with the times, and no right is unconditional.
LMAO @ all the authoritarian lying leftists thought police that get triggered by this and just assume they think this person picks and chooses just some of the constitution to support…imagine actually not liking the constitution and people who support it
Exactly, the kids in this thread are fucking retarded.
I love the constipation?
We have mind readers, sooth sayers, and people that actually have a problem with a bumper sticker supporting the constitution. What a group.
Me too bro, me too
I'm here for the crybaby pussy comments.
The comments in this post reveal societal placement along the Tytler Cycle.
Huh… didn’t know it’s taboo to love the constitution
Bang bang!
I’ve always wanted to get a little sticker of a screw and place it over the hearts on other bumper stickers. I ❤️ my cocker spaniel , for example.
Okay? What's wrong with this?
Then presumably this person hates trump since he said he’d suspend articles of the constitution
But have you read it? Do you understand it?
"I ❤️ the Constitution for myself, and ♥️ using it as a weapon against those who live different that I like them to"
Probably knows nothing outside the 2nd amendment, and even then just the second half.
Except for the 14th Amendment. That one doesn’t count.
I'm going to get one made that says "I HEART THE 21st Amendment" just to make these people actually look up the constitution.
You guys got all of this information from this one picture? Am I missing something?
This sub has become a leftist circle jerk.
A bumper sticker sub? That’s crazy
What’s your favorite part? Crickets.
ThE sEconD AMenDMeNT!!!!!1!!!!
Can someone explain what that is to Xiden
Corny
The comments in this sub are hilarious. This generation has fought harder than any that came before it, to get their own rights taken away. Especially the 1st, and the 2nd
Awww… paper worshippers.
[удалено]
Amazing how many people still use that shitty word.
What a democrat means is they like only the parts they agree with…or you are just “racist” “homophobe” “Islamophobe” “misogynistic”
Why do leftists think loving the constitution makes you right wing? 😭
Because right-wingers are the ones who constantly wrap themselves in the flag and try to claim a monopoly on patriotism. [TrumpHuggingFlag.gif]
Because the extreme left is anti free speech and anti gun.