LikeYestrdaysJam wrote:But seriously does congress not realize the outdated nature of this American Revolution war era right...
I'm not certain if I'm wasting my time, but let me address the above sentence with as much objectivity as I can muster. But before I do, may I recommend that you actually read the US Constitution? While it's not an easy read, the Consititution isn't written in Martian either. Plus, it's very short, even with the Bill of Rights and other amendments.
Also, before one dismisses things as "outdated," one would probably benefit from studying the context of the period in question and comparing it to contemporary ones. I recommend studying the events surrounding the Revolution, the makeup of the Colonies, and the Declaration of Independence. I know that sounds like a lot of work, but research has never been easier with the Internet (don't just rely on Wiki for all your facts, though- it's better as a guide map than an actual resource). In a space of hours, one could gain a halfway decent grounding in the American experience with government.
OK, on to my analysis of your argument:
First, Congress cannot directly ratify changes to the US Constitution. Amendments can be proposed by two-thirds of both Houses (hard to do) or by state conventions. Ratification can only be made through a series of conventions in the various states, or by a vote of the state legislatures. This is a direct protection of the pluralism of cultures that comprise the US, through the affirmation of states' rights.
Second, the "outdated" nature of many parts of the US Constitution has been a frequent argument of domestic groups that wish to change the compact between the states into one more of their liking. In many cases they have succeeded in cicumventing or completely ignoring significant parts of the Constitution.
In fact, the current "Tea Party" movement can be viewed as a polarization of the populace into two groups: on one side, there are people who (broadly) say, "Hey, this country used to have something that we've lost- we want it back. Our ideals are dying one by one to dubious practices that violate the Constitution's spirit; only the polticial rhetoric remains."
On the other side, there are people who (again, broadly speaking) declare, "Look, guys, this is the 21st century, and I think we've all learned a thing or two since the Revolution. We don't care about the past, we care about the problems we're facing here and now and the only way to solve them is by moving forward, not backward. So let's be practical and leave fanatical 'ideals' at the door."
My response is twofold: If everyone in the country agreed that certain parts of the US Constitution were indeed outdated, then Amending them should be no problem. And, the past is not so dissimilar to the present as one might be inclined to believe.
LikeYestrdaysJam wrote:What right to americans have to own pistols and automatic weapons is what i ask you?
The right as guaranteed in the Second Amendment of the US Constitution:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Revisionist movements have attempted (and succeeded to some degree) in re-interpreting this amendment to only apply to the National Guard; nothing could be further from the intentions of the original writers. But that is another debate for another time, perhaps.
