>

I mean, in your defense, there's been more mass shootings this year than total number of days, so yeah, I agree with you.
/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2) The constitution is outdated.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. >


I think it goes without saying that ALL arguments based on false premises aren't valid. That has nothing to do with constitutionally based arguments specifically. And it shouldn't tar them broadly. We can easily throw out the ones with false premises like we do for any other kind of argument.
The purpose of the constitution is to have a cap on legislative power. It isn't supposed to be infallible, even the people who drafted it were clear they expected it to change. But they expected it to change in a particular manner through a particular process of amendment or constitutional convention which showed that a change was OVERWHELMINGLY favored by the people. The idea was that some values were so central to the nature of the country you didn't want bare majorities to be repealing them because they knew bare majorities of idiots, oppressors and assholes can easily take power.
Sure, the constitution can be amended. But most arguments on the constitutionality of new policies, when fleshed out don't ONLY say that a policy can't be pursuded because it isn't currently constitutional. If you press anyone making these arguments they will add one of two additional premises. Either they will say that the particular part of the constitution in the way of that particular change SHOULDN'T be amended away. Or they will note that the particular part of the constitution is not practically POSSIBLE to eliminate.

For the second amendment as your example, what would be involved in repealing it? One party has made it a core part of their identity. The necessary support to repeal the amendment would require a restructuring of the whole cultural identity of the country. Maybe a noble goal. But if you're just pushing for the policy goal without acknowledging the practical roadblock to achieving it, you may as well push the policy goal of "Let's have world peace". >

There's a difference between pushing for a tangible piece of legislation and stating a desired goal.  The goal is simply what you want to happen, and then from there you could talk about how to actually accomplish that.  Stating that a goal isn't practically possible to achieve doesn't somehow mean that goal isn't good.  "World peace" isn't a bad goal, even if reality tells us we likely won't ever fully succeed. >

Both OP isn't really talking about nice sentiments. They seem to be talking on some level about practicable change. >

Having a tangible goal that directs your practical behavior isn't bad either just because you can't get everything you want. >

It is bad if that goal isn't practical and you either don't amend your goal to the more practical and nuanced version or you don't add on the correct addendums. 
Good ideas get perverted through time because not enough people do those 2 things and instead take the idea at face value. >

There's nothing wrong with having an underlying unachievable goal in mind while also taking steps towards achievable goals.  You shouldn't stop thinking world peace is a good goal just because it likely won't be achieved, because the "end point" should always be "world peace."  If you can get closer to that, you always should do so. >

I'm addressing the transmission of that idea to other people who won't apply the same level of thought and nuance that you have, that's my fundamental issue with your defense of impractical goals. 
Some people won't realize it's not achievable and that's going to drastically affect their behaviors. Either they become radicals or they become disillusioned. >

I think it does far more harm to tell people that just because something would be difficult that means it's bad to want it or to strive for it.  Give me a room full of people who don't think that critically and I'm far more concerned with those who are talked to by people declaring "because it's the law there's no reason to even talk about it" than people declaring "it being the law isn't by itself a good enough reason to oppose something." >

In the context of world peace it's not difficult it's impossible, this is an important distinction. 
Making a change to the constitution or a law is difficult but not impossible. In this context I 100% agree with you. 
So it depends what we are talking about. >

OP was pretty clear that they were talking about being for or against something solely based on the constitutionality of it.
The person I responded to was trying to go down this path of achievable goals vs unachievable goals, except it still doesn't make sense to be against world peace just because it's not achievable.  Like as a practical matter, what situation do you think someone is going to bring up "world peace" where they aren't making a broader point about larger unattainable goals with lesser goals that are more achievable? >

"Its unconstitutional" is generally a charge leveled against an attempted change that is *not* a constitutional amendment. To the best of my knowledge, no current gun bills are submitted as an amendment.
That alone entirely dispenses with #3.
Yes, you could absolutely file an amendment, and be within the proper procedures. Nobody is, and is intentionally using other procedures instead. Complaining about that is entirely valid.
​
As for #2, if the constitution is no longer binding, then what authority does our government have to make any law whatsoever? The Constitution is where government authority is derived. Toss it, and what remains? nothing. Yes, it was imperfect, and it was amended, but amending is not ignoring. If you wish to disband government and start anew, why and how? 
​
Last but not least, for #1, "Big tech censoring conservative voices is unconstitutional," has turned out to be, per the Twitter files, government directly making payment to corporations so that they would censor the list of people the government wished to be silenced. The idea that constitutional protections can be circumvented by the government simply paying another entity to do a prohibited act on its behalf. For instance, since the government cannot restrict freedom of speech, paying a third party security force to beat protestors on its behalf would be unconstitutional. >


per the Twitter files, government directly making payment to corporations so that they would censor the list of people the government wished to be silenced.

Could you provide a source for this for me? >

Just look up the twitter files. After Elon took over he released a bunch of internal twitter data to private smaller journalists who exposed a LOT about govt influence on censorship on twitter. Accounts being shadow banned, specific posts being suppressed, etc. It stands to reason other social media companies also do this, but we only have explicit evidence for twitter. 
There were multiple parts of the Twitter Files and they are very easy to find with a simple google. >


"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. >

Lol which bill was that? >

I believe it was HR 1808 >


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

The argument is more so that banning one side of speech in such a public forum because one side of the government is working with that public forum is unconstitutional. If I break the rules on social media and I just so happen to be conservative, I wasn't censored because I was conservative. However, when you ban an entire narrative because people in the government are paying you to do so indirectly, or placing pressure on you to ban that narrative for political gain, you have a pretty solid argument that this is against the principles intended by the constitution. That would be my main argument, it concerns the principles, not the literal piece of paper. 

We should not be treating it like some infallible document.

We don't, but we highly consider a lot of what was decided within the constitution to be inalienable rights. Referring to the constitution has probably saved us from thousands of unjust laws, and quite possibly death by the millions. It allows us to not have to have unbelievably in depth conversations regarding basic human rights. 

In fact, if that happened, you'd suddenly be against owning assault weapons because doing do would be unconstitutional, right?

At this point, you wouldn't be simply amending the constitution, you would be disagreeing with the morals and ethics of millions of people when it comes to being able to protect your own life. Also, by saying "assault weapon", you're doing exactly what you claim others to be doing in this regard. Assault weapons/assault rifles are nearly impossible to obtain, as the the true definition of an assault rifle is a rifle the military would use that has a select fire switch between semi-auto and fully auto. These firearms have been severely restricted since the early 1900's.  Most people were on board with this decision as fully auto is rather unnecessary when it comes to self-defense, however, semi-automatic weapons are definitely nowhere near unnecessary when it comes to self-defense. 

"it's unconstitutional" was never a valid reason to be against something.

I agree in a literal sense that simply saying something is unconstitutional without any further argument is simply an appeal to authority, but for the most part upholding a standard that we're not allowed to assume any further meaning behind referencing the constitution as valid or reasonable is pretty crazy when you boil it down. 
You would have to have a deep philosophical debate on almost every subject surrounding the constitution without being able to refer to it as the basic human rights playbook. >

!delta Sure, when I say it's no valid, I mean saying that it actually goes against the to-the-letter constitution; however, some people may use it meaning that it goes against the spirit of the constitution, which, while I don't care about, is not necessarily an invalid opinion.
​

Referring to the constitution has probably saved us from thousands of unjust laws, and quite possibly death by the millions.

But it has quite definitely cost us deaths by the hundreds of thousands.

At this point, you wouldn't be simply amending the constitution, you would be disagreeing with the morals and ethics of millions of people when it comes to being able to protect your own life.

And not changing the constitution would be costing hundreds of thousands of people their lives. >


And not changing the constitution would be costing hundreds of thousands of people their lives.

This is actually a rather difficult claim to uphold.
(1) well over 50% of all gun deaths are suicides.  Banning assault weapons does nothing to address these deaths.
(2) According to the FBI, of the 43% or so of gun deaths that are unlawful killings, 59% where handguns. 3% of the weapons reported were guns that in one way or another are referred to as assault weapons. The remaining 36% are shotguns, long rifles, and "type not stated."
This means of the 45,222 people who died by firearms in 2020, 584 can be attributed to so-called assault weapons, per the FBI uniformed crime database.
Nearly all of these are indeed mass-shooter events, which make it seem like a great deal more than it is. It captures are imaginations and our fears. But so-called assault weapons are not nearly the threat that, say, 9mm pistols are.
584 is a long way from "hundreds of thousands." If we take the most charitable position of "200,000 is 'hundreds of thousands,' then it will take us roughly 342.4 years for us to get to "hundreds of thousands" of lives saved if we ban assault weapons tomorrow.  
And while I get that your view is about the comment regarding the constitution. When a proposed change (1) doesn't have the possibility of having the beneficial impact people insist it will (as in this case) and (2) there are on-point SCOTUS cases saying it would be unconstitutional, noting that it is an amazing amount of effort to do nothing to solve any particular problem is, in fact, a reasonable argument. There's lots that we can do to save lives lost to gun violence. Banning so-called assault weapons isn't one of those things. The data demonstrates that it would have almost no impact on the number of deaths. >

Love that there has been absolutely no response to this. >


In fact, if that happened, you'd suddenly be against owning assault weapons because doing do would be unconstitutional, right? Of course not: because "it's unconstitutional" was never a valid reason to be against something.

I feel like this is just missing what is being said / meant. When a pro gun person says you can't do something because it's unconstitutional, that's clearly not the reason it shouldn't be done. Their reason why it shouldn't be done is because they like their guns and don't want to give them up. The constitutionality argument speaks to why you can't do anything about it. Yes, you could amend the constitution in theory, but in practice you probably don't have the votes. So whenever someone says "you can't do that it's unconstitutional", what they're very clearly actually saying is "you can't do that without first amending the constitution". And since it's very obvious such an amendment would fail, these two statements collapse into one. >


And since it's very obvious such an amendment would fail, these two statements collapse into one.

But those arguments don't collapse into one. One is an actual argument for why you shouldn't do something. The other is a procedural hurdle. >

But the whole point I was making was that this is a miscommunication between "should" and "could". The usual argument is not that the constitution is why you shouldn't do it, the argument is usually that that the constitution is why you can't do it. I agree that the "argument why you shouldn't do something" doesn't really make sense. But they always have another reason for that, and that's not why they invoke the constitution. They invoke the constitution as a shield. And the difficulty of the procedural hurdle for taking down that shield is extremely relevant! >

This guy never read the Heller decision and wrote this before Bruen. That’s why his ideas on what is legal are laughable. He’s arguing for something the Supreme Court ruled was illegal 7 years before he wrote this. >

That isn't the point. The point is that unconstitutional is used as an argument for why something can't be done. Not that it is unlikely an amendment would pass to allow it. >

? That’s not an argument made in the article you posted? >



Gun control is a violation of the 2nd amendment

Confiscating everyone’s guns would be a violation of the Second Amendment. So would banning all guns outright. I know plenty of people would like this outcome, but let’s face it: It’s isn’t even a remote possibility.
During Obama’s presidency, after every mass shooting, at a school or elsewhere, before anyone could start talking about gun control, we heard it: Obama is coming for your guns! He’s gone, but our guns are still here. Even the staunchest gun control advocates in Congress and in statehouses don’t talk about banning guns.
It’s illegal to commit fraud, or incite a riot, or lie to a police officer. But these aren’t violations of the First Amendment protection of free speech.
The Second Amendment doesn’t give everyone an absolute right to every kind of weapon no matter what forever. We don’t allow grenade launchers or fully automatic weapons. We can certainly limit military style rifles in number, and ensure anyone owning one is really of sound mind, without “infringing” the right of “the people” to “keep and bear arms”.

Nowhere in this point does he mention that an amendment would allow this to happen. He just points out what would or wouldn't be allowed under the second amendment. >

And I’m trying to make clear to you that he doesn’t understand the case law surrounding the 2nd amendment. Look at what he said: 

The Second Amendment doesn’t give everyone an absolute right to every kind of weapon no matter what forever. We don’t allow grenade launchers or fully automatic weapons.

1) the government does allow people to buy grenade launchers, as long as you fill out a Form 4 when you purchase it. The government does allow people to own fully automatic weapons, provided they were made before 1980 (I think, don’t quote me). 
However this is the real meat of the issue: 

We can certainly limit military style rifles in number, and ensure anyone owning one is really of sound mind, without “infringing” the right of “the people” to “keep and bear arms”.

You really can’t. Heller made it clear that the 2nd amendment applies to all weapons that are in “common use”, so the idea that a ban on the most common style of rifle on America would pass muster in court is laughable. Even California, with its draconian laws, is toeing court rulings without appealing, because it knows SCOTUS will cut their laws down. After this article was written, the Bruen decision made it so that no gun law will pass constitutional muster as it stands today if that law is not based in the history of our nation.
My point being, this guy didn’t research what he wrote. >

Ok then you agree with the OP. You aren't arguing that it is correct to argue that something is unconstitutional but rather his other arguments are bad as well. >

The entire basis of the US Federal government is the Constitution. The government cannot infringe upon any of the rights explicitly granted by it.

We should not be treating it like some infallible document.

We don't. We have a legally acceptable way to change it and it is included in there: amendments. We've had 27 so far. It specifies exactly how to do it, and it is complicated, by design. >


The government cannot infringe upon any of the rights explicitly granted by it.

It can with an amendment.

We don't. 

Many do. >

Not according to the 9th Amendment which explicitly States despite the government not in numerating all rights it doesn't undermine the fact that the people still have a right to them even rights that have not been explicitly stated >

So if an amendment repealed the 9th amendment... >

The 9th Amendment does not restrict anything it simply clarifies that regardless of how the government acts the rights are inalienable
Meaning if the government were to become tyrannical the right of the people to exercise their right of revolution would come into play regardless of if it claims legitimacy to the Constitution
The government cannot repeal a natural right or law any more than it can repeal the law of gravity because such things do not originate with humans or human institutions because they predate Humanity and exist with all living intelligent beings in a state of nature >

Meanwhile, in the real world, you really think a tyrannical government is going to care? >

You're missing the point it's not about what the government of any day cares about governments can and do violate people's rights all the time but whether or not those rights are violated has no bearing on whether or not those rights exist >

Rights aren’t metaphysical entities, with some kind of independent existence. They ‘exist’ to the extent that they are recognized as such. You can claim whatever rights you want, if they’re not accepted by relevant other parties they’re just a fiction. >

All law and morals are fiction so saying that rights are fiction isn't an argument against them >


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.

This is the part I want to focus on. When America was founded, yes it was flawed. But it was founded on the core idea of liberty. The Constitution is a testament to the American idea and serves as a means of protecting it. The government in no way can violate out rights in the Constitution, which is hugely important. And over time we have made strides in improving the Constitution through amendments that further liberty.
Strictly claiming "it's outdated, we should get rid of it" is dangerous as it puts our liberties in danger. We've existed for 250 years and have managed to avoid authoritarianism, which is almost certainly due to the Constitution. Take speech, for instance. Many other foreign democracies like those in Canada or Europe have placed limits on what type of speech constitutes "free speech," meaning some speech is illegal, which, in turn, means that they don't actually have free speech. That can't happen here because of the 1st Amendment. 
The Constitution grants us a list of rights and ensures us that, no matter what, the government cannot ever infringe on them. 
And the founding fathers were smart. They knew that a static document wasn't going to work for a nation that was meant to exist for centuries, which is why the Constitution can be amended, but it can only be amended if the amendment serves to further the cause of liberty. 
So, something like slavery, for instance, is obviously an infringement on liberty. At the time when the Constitution was written, it was the norm, but it definitely violated the liberty of thousands of Africans. The 13th Amendment, then, was perfectly fit for the Constitution as it furthered liberty. And, on top of that, it had a precedent in that many of the founding fathers hated slavery. Historically, it's a complex issue on why they allowed it, but many of them certainly weren't fans of it. Thomas Jefferson, for example, was a frequent critic of slavery, stating in "The Notes of the State of Virginia" that "[t]he whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other.”
In other places Jefferson referred to slavery as "a moral depravity" and a "hideous blot" on America. And he wasn't the only founding father to do so. James Maddison, too, was a frequent critic. 
All of this is to say that amendments like the 13th were a natural progression for America, and now that the 13th Amendment exists, owning slaves in the future is impossible as the Constitution protects all Americans from such an evil act. Without the Constitution, it is theoretically possible that slavery could one day be reinstated. >

So I read your post and also read a lot of responses. It seems to me that you are looking at this issue as if time doesn’t exist. 
Basically you’re saying that “argument x” is invalid because in the future it is possible to make it unconstitutional using a future amendment. 
Okay? And that proves your right, how, exactly? Because today no such amendment exists. Therefore it is unconstitutional. That it. That’s the end. There is no amendment that exists. Game over. 
In order to engage in your theory we would need to suspend time. Okay, let’s do that. Now you need to pass the amendment. Why on earth do you think it is possible in the next 100 years that would happen? >

I'm not saying it's unconstitutional. If you actually read the post, you'd know I said that "it's unconstitutional" isn't a valid argument. >

I read your post, as well as many of your responses to others. 
If you had read my response you’d know that. 
Perhaps you’re not understanding exactly what you yourself are saying? >


Okay, so we could pass an amendment that repealed the 2nd amendment and you would be totally on board, right?

But that hasn't happened, so...first you would have to do that. That's what the appeals to the constitution are about. It is much harder to pass an amendment than to pass a regular law. >

So someone's argument is "It's okay to do it so long as a few more people agree on it than you need for most laws?" I don't think that's the case. >

But that’s exactly the point. Ratification requires a higher bar to pass than a regular law - meaning that there needs to be much more public support for an amendment. That still doesn’t mean it’s set in stone just because it’s was ratified as an amendment. It can still be repealed like with prohibition. >

So you do think that's the argument? You think when someone says "it's unconstitutional," you think that means "It's fine as long as 2/3rds of the senate and 38 states approve it?" >

Yes. That’s generally what unconstitutional means. Now, there may be a person who disagrees with a constitutional amendment on moral grounds. It wouldn’t make much sense for them to say that it’s unconstitutional because it’s an amendment. By definition, an amendment is part of the constitution.  However, they could still disagree with it morally. >

Point 3 contridicts point 2. The constitution was written 250 years ago, but it's not outdated because we keep updating it. In fact, we have updated it 27 times.
Even in your example:

supported the enslavement of Blacks and the second-class citizenship of women.

We updated that with the 13th and 14th amendments (abolishing slavery and granting citizenship to everyone born in america, including women and african americans), so it's not outdated in your very own example.
When i disagree with you and say its my constitutional right, I am saying you cannot make a law on it. A small minority can still outvote the majority because it's a basic right as outlined in the constitution.
To pass an amendment, you'd have to make me and many other people agree with you. Otherwise, my rights are protected from majority opinion >

Something can both be alterable and outdated., We haven't updated it in 30 years and haven't made any really meaningful change in over 50. >

Does it need to change more often? Its designed to be resistant to change unless it's heavily agreed upon. To change more often than that would be silly. It defeats the purpose of the document. 
So what is outdated about it today? It can't be gun bans because it's too heated of a debate to win 2/3 the vote.
Most gun control doesn't even fall under the 2nd, the courts only recognize outright banning weapons as a violation. Most americans advocate for more reasonable gun control than bans, so why would banning even be a consideration as an amendment? >

1) I don't think you can make a blanket statement like a certain kind of censorship isn't unconstitutional.   There is free speech, and as you say, the constitution was written quite some time ago, so it can't be expected to cater to the internet or other things that weren't even dreamed of at that time.   So it is up to the courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court to determine if a law, or action is or isn't unconstitutional, based on what the court believes the intent of the constitution was.
2) The constitution is outdated only in that there are things that could not have been anticipated, but it is a framework.  Also, the constitution didn't "support the enslavement of blacks" but banning slavery wasn't possible if there was any chance to get the constitution passed in the first place.   Those elected can propose changes, and with enough support of those elected by the people, the constitution can change.  That doesn't mean the Consitution is outdated.  It just means it can be updated.
One important thing to keep in mind is that those elected to office have sworn to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, so while they can propose modifications, anything they do that is clearly in violation of it, is grounds for relinquishing their office, which needs to happen more often, honestly.
3)  This part is correct, but once an amendment is passed by 3/4 of the states, it becomes constitutional, so you can't just do something unconstitutional because you think the constitution is wrong.  
This may be an unpopular opinion on this forum, but the constitution is an amazing document and largely the reason our country is often the envy of many others.  Are we perfect? No.  But there aren't throngs of Americans illegally trying to emigrate to other countries for a better life. >

If a rule change is ultimately going to be overturned by the courts then the only reason for doing so is to virtue signal to your tribe. If you're interested in doing actual legislation then you have better things to spend your time on. 
Not to mention that there's a backlash effect, the excess of GWB led to Obama, the excesses of Hilary led to Trump, the excesses of Trump led to Biden and a democrat majority for two years...pursuing goals that are fruitless may end up motivating the other side in a way that destroys your ability to set legislation going forward. IMO passing extremely restrictive abortion legislation cost the Republicans the Senate majority and now they have two more years of Democrats approving all of Biden's judge nominees...were they actually made better off by proposing that legislation or are they now worse off for doing so? >

You're right, "it's unconstitutional" is technically a legal, not ethical, argument. But I think it's worth considering that the people who bring it up believe that the law still represents a moral stance that they hold, which is essentially the idea that gun ownership is an important individual right that should be preserved in the law. >

Is "it's a violation of human rights" a valid reason not to do something?  We can of course do things even if they violate human rights and can also amend lists of human rights if we want. >

The second amendment was put in place to ensure the state is afraid of revolution. I know it has negative side effects but it also prevents what I view as even worse atrocities. 
The purpose of guns are not for hunting but to prevent government dictatorships. >

That doesn't mean that "it's unconstitutional" is a valid argument, which is the CMV. >

I know, I guess saying it's unconstitutional is a way of shortening the reasons. It is an appeal to authority. If I want to do kill someone, you say it's illegal, I view that as a shorthand to say look for the reasons we wrote this as a rule.
Ii could tell you a free press is a constitutional right, because I don't want to get into how having a free press puts scrutiny on the political system, and tells us when they are being shady.
I don't feel like getting into details so I just say police beating up a reporter for standing nearby with a camera is unconstitutional. >

What does it mean to “implement ideas, like ‘banning assault weapons.’” without it being a law? I have no idea how an idea is implemented without being made a law.
I agree in some sense that some people are too quick to tout “It’s unconstitutional!” Yeah, it might be. But that’s for the Federal Court system to decide (unless trying to administer something that has already been struck down or near enough to being the same thing.) >


What does it mean to “implement ideas, like ‘banning assault weapons.’” without it being a law? I have no idea how an idea is implemented without being made a law.

Like I said, make an amendment. >

But that would be a law… >

No, an amendment is not a law. >

The Constitution of the United States of America is the highest law in the land. Amendments, while listed as amendments, are as binding as if they were in the original ratification of the Constitution. By what reasoning to you arrive at the idea that an amendment is not a law? >

I really get where you are coming from with this post but let me give you another, also valid, perspective. 
It is not fashionable to say so but the fact is that, the United States, for all of its flaws, has been a remarkably stable, peaceful and prosperous country for nearly 250 years. 
Seriously, compare it to its peer great powers: Russia, China, Germany, France, Japan and you get the idea. 
A lot of this has to do with amazing geography but a lot also has to do with a good system of law and government which is grounded in the Constitution. A document, however flawed, way ahead of its time. 
Your points are valid: the 2nd Amendment is a complete anachronism, the Framers were racist hypocrites. Yes and yes. 
But to just say, “who cares about constitutionality?” would be to invite chaos. Especially in today’s hyper partisan atmosphere. What, if not the constitution, determines the righteousness of law? 
The only thing I can think of is force. What would that look like? Check out the histories of the other great powers for your answer >


What, if not the constitution, determines the righteousness of law? 

Well right now is the hyper partisan supreme court who just makes things up >

When have they not? 
Even if you go back to 1803, Marbury v. Madison saw the Supreme Court give themselves the power to determine “Constitutionality”.
It works, mate! We’ve only had one civil war since then! Way below average for a great power. >

I know you've already granted deltas, OP, but allow me to try a different angle for some food for thought 
The only time we banned something broadly with an amendment (alcohol), it was an unmitigated disaster that has seen knock on effects into the present day. This is the only example where we banned something with an amendment and then used another amendment to repeal the original amendment. And alcohol consumption wasn't protected in the bill of rights. Do you think trying to repeal the 2nd amendment would go better than prohibition? >

Wishing for something that cannot happen is like wishing for a billion dollars to be delivered to your bank account. Yes, it is something that theoretically could happen. But it won't happen because of the massive number of barriers that are preventing that from happening.
It sounds like you're reading "we can't do X" as "we shouldn't do X" -- when it was never intended to be that. >


Many times, though not always, cries of unconstitutionality are totally unfounded. These are easily dismissed by just asking, "Where in the constitution does it say you can't do that?"

That does not dismiss claims of unconstitutionality, much less easily.
Constitutionality is based in black letter and case law, same as everything else, because the case law determines what specifics and broad ideas are included in things.

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.

It is not infallible nor was it meant to be -- hence it's been amended over and over. If none of those things were changed, you might have an argument here, but it's a living document that can be changed, and interpreted, to fit the times. 

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

Yes, that was the point. The founders knew very well there were and would be circumstances and issues they couldn't foresee and didn't include. 
You're basically quoting people who are either uneducated or being purposefully obtuse and hypocritical, like some recent justices who claim they're ardent textualists and originalists except when it comes to an issue they don't like in the moment, like say, states' rights. >


That does not dismiss claims of unconstitutionality, much less easily.

Yes, if you can't point to anywhere in the constitution to show how something is unconstitutional, it's not unconstitutional.

It is not infallible nor was it meant to be

And yet people treat it like it is.

You're basically quoting people who are either uneducated or being purposefully obtuse and hypocritical,

Sounds like you agree then. >

There is a difference between "I'd like to implement a change" and "I believe it practically feasible to implement a change".
To address your points.
1. False statements don't really need addressing, because if something is objectively false, such an issue is, by definition, wrong. On the example though, the constitution was written long before our numerous communication revolutions. With phones, the government has determined that their communication platforms are public forums, and cannot be restricted based on content. Ma Bell can't deny liberals, conservatives, or even nazis phone service. There are strong arguments that can be made that internet based communication platforms are the modern day public forums, and should be regulated as such.
2. Few people treat the constitution as infallible. I know of nobody personally that doesn't recognize each of the 27 amendments. Even the staunchest constitutionalist references the constitution as it is now, rather than as it was 250 years ago. Which, if point 3 of yours was valid, would completely invalidate this point...
3. But it isn't. Sure, technically, the constitution can be amended. With a 67% majority vote in the house and senate, as well as ratification by 38 states. The last time such a vote was passed by congress was the 26th amendment, in 1971. (The 27th amendment used a clever loophole to ratify a proposed amendment that was passed in 1789.)
The benchmark for 2/3 support is a bar that is so unrealistic that advancing reform on issues that are even moderately contested is functionally impossible. This is the strongest argument against "pass an amendment to fix it". We need to fix it before we can pass an amendment.
For amendments to be feasible, the level of divisiveness in our political system needs to be drastically reduced. 
So as it stands, perhaps we should pass an amendment codifying abortion rights. That's as true as saying that everyone should have their own housing, nutritious food, and reliable transportation. It's a great and idealistic idea, but making it happen is a lot harder than saying it should happen. >

An assault weapon is an undefinable term, many think the ar in ar 15 stands for assault rifle.  You want to disarm civilians but the government will still be touting their guns >

I'm gonna address point one because it displays a (commonly held)  fundamental misunderstanding of what the constitution is. It is not meant to be a list of things the government is not allowed to do, or a list of rights granted to the people. It's a list of powers granted by the people to the government. If it doesn't say in there that the government can do something, that thing is unconstitutional. 
People get confused by the bill of rights explicitly enumerating certain rights of the people, but as the federalists correctly argued, these enumerated rights are redundant. The constitution never gave the government the power to restrict speech or religion, so the first amendment is redundant and unnecessary. 
The federalists argued correctly that people would get the wrong impression from this and think that if a right is not listed, the people don't have it. So the 9th and 10th amendments were added as a compromise to make it explicitly clear that this is not the case. 
That said, we've long passed the point where these amendments were trampled upon with the concepts of "implied powers", so, the entire thing is kind of irrelevant at this point. Judges will interpret the thing to mean whatever they want, and governments have no reason to go through the onerous process of amending the constitution anymore when they can simply decide that actually, it always "implied" that they can do whatever they want. >

That's the point, though. The US Constitution can be amended.
There is a process in place to use. If you want to make a change that would go against the Constitution as it is currently written, you need to make that change through the amendment process.
Also, in reference to the enumerated and unemumerated rights protected by the US Constitution, please remember that the US Constitution does not create those rights. It merely protects those rights either explicitly enumerated or those not specified as unenumerated rights.
Those rights still exist independent of constitutional protection. >

The arguments aren't "We can't ban assault weapons because that would require an amendment. They're "We can't ban assault weapons because it's unconstitutional (implying we couldn't even make an amendment)." >


(implying we couldn't even make an amendment)

Stating that a proposed law would be unconstitutional in no way implies that it would be impossible to amend the constitution.
In fact, that's the only thing it does imply. That is explicitly and specifically what an amendment is for, to change the constitutionality of something.
"Needs an amendment to be allowed" and "is currently unconstitutional" are perfectly synonymous. >

Saying "banning assault weapons is unconstitutional" implies that it would be impossible to amend the constitution because making an amendment would be a constitutional way to ban assault weapons. >

There appears to be some sort of major disconnect here involving language or grammar, but I don't know exactly what it is.
No legal scholar would agree with the sentence you just wrote, and I don't think very many laymen would agree either. If what you are saying was true, nothing could ever be called unconstitutional, because any given thing could be made constitutional via an amendment.
The Supreme Court, in their published opinions, will describe statutes or conduct as "unconstitutional". The meaning is clear in that the unconstitutionality of the thing is in relation to the constitution as it is currently written, not a potential future constitution. It is not necessary to specify that an unconstitutional thing could be made constitutional via an amendment every time you describe something as unconstitutional. >

On my car I change my own air filter and inflate the tires when needed but I don’t do anything serious to the engine because monkeying around with the real engine is really complicated and could break something important.
The constitution is like that. The constitution applies to everyone and for the rest of our lives unless repealed by a long and difficult process. We should be careful to mess with it unless absolutely necessary. >

How about something being unconstitutional as a practical argument against it?  
If something is unconstitutional, it requires amending the constitution, which is an incredibly high bar. If you recognize that amending the Constitution in some way is practically impossible at this period in time, isn't that a valid argument against pursuing something that requires amending the Constitution if you believe the energy/resources would be better used on something that is achievable? >

It is a defense on the grounds of feasibility. You may as well argue that we should wish the guns away - both that and a constitutional amendment are about equally as probable. >

It can be a practical argument though. If a law would clearly violate the First Amendment (or any part of the Constitution), then it’s a big waste of time to pass that bill into law. Sure, you could in theory amend the Constitution — but that’s so hard to do that it’s not a realistic option. It’s not going to happen. 
So if the topic is how to solve x problem, and the proposed solution is to pass a law, then I think it’s a legitimate criticism to point out that the law would be unconstitutional. It’s a way of saying that idea wouldn’t actually solve the problem. The law would get struck down and a constitutional amendment would never happen. >

“It’s unconstitutional” means there is not broad enough support to repeal the relevant amendment. That is a valid argument. 
Something unconstitutional could be made constitutional, but it isn’t. Why isn’t it? Bc the US people, federal courts, and legislative bodies have decided that the right granted by the amendment is more important than the law that would breach it. >

Is realism not part of this exercise? Realistically, in the current political climate, a constitutional amendment isn’t realistic. 
So in terms of proposing something, if you’re talking theoretical that’s one thing. If you’re talking to part donors to raise funds for a campaign to make the change, good f’ing luck convincing them to get on board with a dead before it started idea. >

There are reasons behind every law in the constitution. So claiming gun ban it's unconstitutional could be shorthand for "people have rights to defend themselves against both other individuals and the state".
The constitution is a bunch of ideas on how US should work and they are saying that they still want to live by those ideas while other find it outdated. >

#2 and #3 are mutually exclusive: you can't argue against unconstitutionality by asserting the Constitution is both outdated and changeable, especially when you claim that #3 is the strongest of your arguments.
The Constitution is intended to protect the rights of the few while at the same time obliging the direction that the vast majority of the country wants to head. Hence, while it is possible to amend the Constitution, a super-majority is needed to do so. This prevents mob rule (protects the minority opinion when slim majorities want X, Y, or Z), but it also allows for change when almost all citizens/states agree on a newfound course of action.
In this sense, the Constitution is a rough reflection of the sensus fidelium and can therefore be used as a legitimate piece of evidence in an argument. >

The Constitution, like all human made things, is imperfect.  It is not treated like it is infallible, it is treated like it is the starting point upon which many policy discussions occur, because it is the foundation of the system that has the policy that needs to be discussed.  
Most of the time, the people that bring up the unConstitutionality of a proposal do so as a method of speeding up the actual conversation.  I believe we should "ban assault weapons" will generate a real and honest discussion about what is the definition of an assault weapon that, if you are not prepared to have, will make you lose ALL credibility with the people on the other side.  But if instead someone says "that's unConstitutional" and you counter with clearly we should be able to keep people from buying machine guns, then the person on the other side would say "well the 1986 law makes it impossible to make new machine guns for the general public, and those made before 1986 are registered, and cost AT LOT of money, so much that no actual group can own them."  And viola!  You have found some common ground based upon what you are advocating for and what has already been accomplished and is in place.
It also speeds up the arguement, "Big Tech censoring republicans is unConstitutional!" makes the next statement super obvious "big tech like all private companies can do what they want them not amplifying someone's views is not unconstitutional."  Now the conversation is substantially narrowed to private property.  Unless of course the advocate comes back and says "it is unConstitutional when big tech censors people because the government told them to" and now the conversation is narrowed away from private property and to the power of the government.  Either way the Constitutionality of the discussion eliminate half of the issue in play. >

I generally agree with you that “it’s unconstitutional” is a bad argument and if somebody is defending something I.e. assault rifles, they need an argument outside of it or else they aren’t really saying anything. 
However I think the point your missing is if you are trying to pass a law that is clearly unconstitutional you’re essentially just grandstanding for an audience because you know the law will never pass judicial scrutiny. Instead of arguing to ban all assault weapons which is practically impossible in our political environment, maybe instead find an argument within the law that’s possible otherwise you’re being just as unproductive. (This is of course operating within the premise that an assault weapons ban would be unconstitutional under the 2nd amendment). >

While I agree that "It's unconstitutional" is not *sufficient* reason for automatically not making a change, it still holds some weight. 
The incentive of the government is to get and use as much power as possible, and one of the purposes of the constitution is to set hard limits on that. You should be careful before removing checks and balances on the government, because however well-intentioned, it often moves beyond it's original intent. E.g. many authoritarian countries first initiated gun bans as a safety issue, then when no one was able to oppose them, they could freely oppress the people and take away more rights. 
The constitutional basis for this is less "this piece of paper said it, so we should do it" and more "This is something that was considered incredibly important at the founding of this country, we should be very careful before changing that."

Many times, though not always, cries of unconstitutionality are totally unfounded. These are easily dismissed by just asking, "Where in the constitution does it say you can't do that?" For example, "Big tech censoring conservative voices is unconstitutional," is just a false statement.

I agree with your specific example, but you have things flipped around: the constitution is supposed to be a whitelist of things the government can do, not a blacklist of things they can't do. Things should be justified by a "where in the constitution does it say you can do that", not by asking for a specific place it says you can't do something. The "interstate commerce" clause, for instance, has been expanded and interpreted far beyond it's original intent.
Even if the constitution is imperfect, we should still lean on the institutions and traditions that have helped us have a free and prosperous country, and only change that when something truly is worth changing, e.g. slavery. >

Your first point says where in the constitution it says you CAN'T do that. That's backwards. The constitution says what government CAN do, it is a limiting document, not an enabling one. That is a crucial difference, and one we mostly seem to have forgotten in our quest to control ever more of our daily lives. >

Ok, a couple of things. 
First, a nitpick: the Constitution cannot be amended, within the Constitutional rules, to deprive states unwillingly of their equal representation in the Senate. Someone who wants to propose giving more Senators to California, for example, can validly be shut down by saying it's Unconstitutional.
Secondly, it's often a valid argument against a proposed way of making a change, even if one might still argue it's a desirable change. If someone wants to wholesale restrict gun rights by law... they're barking up to the wrong tree, and their proposal can validly be shot down by calling it "Unconstitutional". 
Obviously someone could come back with "ok, lets amend the Constitution", to which the valid argument would have to be something more like "you're welcome to try, but you'll fail". 
Calling it "Unconstitutional" is a shortcut summary of that reason for not making the change. >

>"Big tech censoring conservative voices is unconstitutional," is just a false statement.
It's not when they're literally doing it hand in hand with government agencies.
>The constitution is outdated. 
That's when you make amendments to it.  That's the process for anything that is unconstitutional.  That is why criticisms that something is unconstitutional are valid if the change being asserted is not going through the amendment process. >

It's not the only reason. >

What is unconditional is based on what the supreme court fells and the party in charge. >

I mean, sure, in just an abstract discussion about what policies we think might work, I don't think something should be dismissed merely for being potentially unconstitutional.
However, in practical terms, constitutionality (or perceived constitutionality) is a real concern when talking about genuine reform in the US.  Surviving court challenges is a huge consideration when talking about what laws or policies will actually be successfully enacted. If you don't design a policy to withstand constitutional scrutiny, it is unlikely to actually implemented. Since ultimately the goal of policy discussions is to hopefully identify what policies we should have in place, constitutionality has to be considered and might be the reason to decide not to move forward with one.
Granted, constitutionality is less of a consideration if you are pushing right wing policy designed to protect the interests of the wealthy, But that's mainly because the conservatives on the supreme Court are willing to bend their interpretation of the Constitution in order to serve the interests of the wealthy elite. >


Surviving court challenges is a huge consideration when talking about what laws or policies will actually be successfully enacted.

Like I said, I'm not talking about laws. It's more like, "Should we ban assault weapons?" "No, that's unconstitutional." "So we could make an amendment that bans them?" "... no..." >


Like I said, I'm not talking about laws. It's more like, "Should we ban assault weapons?" "No, that's unconstitutional." "So we could make an amendment that bans them?" "... no..."

Yes, in an abstract discussion about what kinds of policies we'd like to see enacted, I agree that just saying it's unconstitutional is a dodge.  But that doesn't mean it doesnt matter at all when it comes to policy discussions.  If you want better gun policy in the US, the second amendment is absolutely a consideration because it's going to be the primary legal barrier to any policy addressing firearms. >

How is the constitution a barrier if you're making an amendment? >


How is the constitution a barrier if you're making an amendment?

Because the constitutional requirements for an amendment are pretty onerous on purpose.  It's not easy to do which is why it's been done only like 17 times in 200 years (first 10 were all at once at the beginning). >


2) The constitution is outdated. 

Overthrowing the constitution is overthrowing the US government. It is treason, it carries a death sentence. So it is irrelevant to call it outdated

3) The constitution can be amended,

Getting 3/4 of the states to agree, not 50%+1 of the vote. 

Okay, so we could pass an amendment that repealed the 2nd amendment and you would be totally on board, right?

Sure. Name the 38 states that will agree to that. Oh, not a chance in hell of getting that many states to agree? Then "it's unconstitutional" still stands. >

As a legal document the constitution is just whatever the sitting SCOTUS says it is. So functionally it’s perfectly possible to “overthrow” whatever current interpretation of the constitution is used at present through changes to SCOTUS without it being “treason”. >


As a legal document the constitution is just whatever the sitting SCOTUS says it is. 

No it isnt. It has actual meaning in and of itself >

I suppose we will need SCOTUS to determine if you are correct. >

The same Americans screaming similiar rhetoric as OP, are also the same Americans demanding that local police are "demilitarized".
Pair that with rifle confiscation would leave the federal government with any and all formidable weapons.
That is absolutely insane.
Millions of armed Americans are a huge deterrent to any foreign enemy looking to invade our homeland.
...and yes, people with rifles such as the semiautomatic AR15 and AK47 can indeed, fight a tyrannical government.
I have witnessed POTUS and other left leaning Americans say that it takes more than a rifle to fight the government, this is all I have to say about that;

DEMOCRATS: "You'll need more than an AR15 to fight the government. They have jets and tanks."
ISIS FIGHTER ON MOPED W/AK47 & $5 EXPLOSIVE: "Hold my beer. ALLAH AKBAR!" >

I agree but it is a valid reason why we can't legally. 
However I will grant you that people, primarily Republicans, claim everything they disagree with is unconstitutional. >

what is your perspective on the courts recent Roe v. Wade ruling? 
would you apply the same argument you've laid out above to Roe v. Wade? >

There’s a difference between logically valid and internally consistent. The purpose of laws whether through legislative or judicial means is to form a cohesive body of doctrines against a set of axioms. These axioms vary depending level of relevant analysis. For example, regulations are governed by enabling acts, courts are governed by Judicial acts, and legislation is governed by constitutions.
What we can observe here, is that all laws flow downstream from the contents and spirit of the constitution (letter of the law and spirit of the law is something else in Jurisprudence relevant to your view). The constitution is the prime axiom that all other legal doctrines are based off of.
Because of this, when someone makes the claim that x is unconstitutional, what they are really saying is that x is inconsistent with the current set of axioms. Not that it is impossible, but that the axioms need to change to accomodate x. However because x is often posited without any reference to axiomatic change, x is not valid because x relates to a different level of legal understanding. >

The constitution is meant to be a preventative measure to government overstepping its boundry. It is meant to advice the populace when your institutions are becoming authoritarian. If it is easily amended then you know your government has begun to overstep its boundry and should be a red flag.
For example, the second amendment, that was meant to combat authoritarian government. If history has taught me anything its that in extreme times people will vote an extreme candidate. The US has had the privilege of being relatively safe from cording invasion since its inception, obviously not including the red coats. The only reason the red coats were defeated was because the population had a gun.
Do you honestly believe that the founding fathers thought this is it for the invention of new weapons? They knew weapons would continue to evolve and get better. They want the people armed. They wanted the people to have the advantage, not the government.
If the constitution is easily changed, in ten years you'll have hate speech laws, the those will evolve to become manipulated and changed to the point that any discourse will be heavily governed. Freedom of speech will become, only some speech if it doesn't offend anyone. We all know people are easily offended at different things.
Your constitution is the only reason the US will remain the only bastion of freedom in the world.
I'm a Canadian, and that's the biggest reason I admire the US. You can literally go out and protest without having your government shut your bank account off. >

Each time the constitution is ratified, it’s a new constitution. To call the constitution of 2023 the constitution of 1787 is wildly wrong for the reason your outlined. At the time, black people and women didn’t have constitutional rights. Now, they do. In actuality, the constitution is only about 30 years old as it was ratified as recently as 1992. >

Banning assault weapons is an idea that would turn into a law if it was implemented. It has been done before, but it lapsed under George W Bush. 
The constitution is a living document - which means it can be amended with the changing culture we live in. 
As to your points:
1. Yes, people use the claim of something being unconstitutional to prevent laws being passed that they don’t like. This is because different people interpret the constitution in different ways.


It is outdated. But we have amendments for a reason. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery. The 19th Amendment guaranteed women the right to vote. 


The constitution was written so that we can amend it. So yes, amending it would make something previously unconstitutional constitutional. 


The 2nd amendment is a little different. The words “cannot be infringed” don’t feature in any other amendment. If you want to ban assault weapons (which would require that you define that term) then you have to repeal the amendment. >

I agree about the fact that not everything wrong is unconstitutional - hence why the Constitution creates a Congress to debate the possibility of new laws in addition to a Supreme Court - but some bills are indeed unconstitutional, if they explicitly violate a specific clause of a specific section of a specific article or amendment of the Constitution. Not violating the Constitution also allows for trust and prevents extralegal disorder by being legal in the first place, hence why people should strive for other laws and supermajorities to amend the Constitution, and some stuff like freedom of speech and the press and suffrage are difficult to regain when lost, and protect said democratic process.
Also, the Constitution itself is not outdated, in that the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution abolishes slavery and involuntary servitude (and thus also the 3/5 clause that some people still cite) and the Nineteenth Amendment ensures equal suffrage for both sexes. The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments also expand racial quality. Without the Constitution or a Charter, people can just argue that the number of people in the Senate and the House of Reps (and what the different houses are) and their terms are different, and arbitrarily so, and there would be chaos. >

First of all. Something being Unconstitutional, just means that instead of a simple majority vote to change the law, it takes altering the Constitution instead, which requires much more of a unanimous type vote. State ratification and all that. If you want to take away firearms fine, just amend the Constitution. 
The Constitution is old, but principles don't get outdated, and as I said above, we CAN chanfe it, we are just very divided right now and therefore wont. To me this is a feature of democracy, if not enough people agree, it doesn't get passed. 
As for the Big Tech Censorship thing, the conservative argument is that those companies are not private, they are utilities, which they put all over their legal documents, and that they are actually subsidized and infiltrated by government employees. This is why the Twitter files matter. 
However, saying something is Unconstitutional, can also be like a slang for, that goes against the founding principles of the country, which is what I think most people mean. >

So your point is that claiming that something is unconstitutional is not valid because:

Maybe the person is lying?
The text is old
The text can be changed

So a valid one would be one rewritten every day, that at the same time cannot be changed, and is somehow impossible to lie about?
If something is unconstitutional, you do not do it. If you want to do it, there are ways as you point out to keep the constitution relevant and up-to-date. Do that. The argument of something being unconstitutional does not mean 'that is against the totalitarian moral laws of the universe', but 'that change has not come about in the way that we as a society determined change must happen'. >

If the argument is that this bill will take away your guns and and someone says, you can't do that, it's unconstitutional. That is completely correct and valid. You cannot pass a bill that contradicts the constitution. 
If the argument is, you can't pass an amendment to change the 2nd amendment, that's unconstitutional. That argument is not valid. 
No one with 2 brain cells is making the second argument. I've never heard on any political commentary, tv show, newspaper, or reddit post, anyone ever make anything close to the second argument. >

Let's start with the 1st Ammendment >

First everyone has to agree on a specific definition of assault weapon. Currently those speak about banning assault weapons have no interest in actually passing an amendment they just want to pass another loosely worded law that people will argue and sue over for decades >

It is only appropriate that I preface by stating that I am not American.
The Bill of Rights is not just any legal document specifying what you may or may not do, it carries the spirit of the fundamental rights humans have on American soil. The "it's unconstitutional" argument doesn't refer to the fact that a piece of paper prohibits/allows something, it refers to the fact that it goes against the basic moral values that this piece of paper represents. Those moral values are the bedrock on which the United States, as a concept, is based. Asking if proponents of the Second Amendment would suddenly become anti-gun were the amendment to be repealed, is akin to asking you if you would be against the right to fair trial if it were repealed from the Constitution. Of course, most nutjobs out there who make this argument probably wouldn't manage to articulate it this way, but that's the fundamental sentiment here. I acknowledge that a lot of those who support the Second Amendment just regurgitate that phrase because they like their guns, much like many people who want to "ban assault weapons" just don't like guns without really knowing what they stand for. The moral merits of the gun debate in the U.S. are way more nuanced than just "hey, that's a deadly tool" and "I don't care, an old legal document says I can have it".
Every amendment that I can think of was put in place to expand the people's freedoms, or to expand freedoms to people who were deprived of them.
By the way, I'm not saying whether or not I think that that's the way it should be. I am simply illustrating what the United States is built upon, and why the Constitution carries weight. >


Okay, so we could pass an amendment that repealed the 2nd amendment and you would be totally on board, right?

I wouldn't. Because if the 2nd amendment- the second-most important amendment, and part of the Bill of Rights, was overturned, that means this country is basically over.  Because you cannot overturn basic rights like the right to keep and bear arms, or the right to free speech, and call yourself a free country. >

Ok....Lets not even get into the rest of your statement and s tick with the cold hard facts. In the actual United States Constitution listed as the 2nd amendment is the following:  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.
How is this difficult to understand? >

A more valid question might be: if the majority of the population disagrees with something in the constitution, would it not be in that population's best interest to change the constitution? >


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.

While I agree with this statement in a vacuum,  I hope the reason it is not a valid supporting argument should be obvious: you realize that those people are, by-and-large, still running the government, right? "The constitution is racist" is not a valid argument for unconstitutionality when the president was an anti-integrationist and the opposition party is fascist. The people who would be doing unconstitutional things are literally the most proactively bigoted people in the country. In fact, if we take the view that racism and sexism are systemic, they are that system! Insofar as we have been able to stop the most virulent parts of the system, we have done so by playing within it and appealing to legal rule of law. If you don't like that, show me your vanguard party. >

If there was no method of changing the constitution, you would have an argument.
But there is, the proper and permanent method of change is to amend the constitution. Your second point falls flat, as the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th & 24th amendments have nullified the arguments you brought up. The constitution isn't an outdated 250 year old document. It is a living document that has been regularly updated over the course of our countries history.
So, stating that banning hand guns is unconstitutional isn't so much an argument against banning hand guns, as a redirect to, if you want to ban hand guns, you'll have to ammend the constitution. Of course, with the obvious knowledge that the 2nd Amendment isn't nearly unpopular enough to have a chance of being repealed in the near or distant future, as it takes far more than a simple majority to ammend the constitution, it has to be an issue that the vast majority agree on. Which is a good thing.
The 2nd Amendment is an interesting one, since the Supreme Court has done such a poor job of protecting it, almost nothing would change if it was repealed. It would fall to the States, the states where it's already extremely difficult to own a gun will just ban them, very little difference there, the other 45 states wouldn't change anything, other than likely write the right to bare arms into their state constitutions.
What you definitely don't want is shady workarounds like the Supreme Court bestowing a right rather than amending the constitution. It is productive only in the short term, but is counterproductive in the long term (the obvious issue I'm referencing would of had the votes and been enshrined in the constitution during Obama era, if it had not been 'solved' by a house built on sand that washes away with the political tides). >

In the United States it is because it is illegal to pass a law that is unconstitutional. >

I believe I fully get what you mean here; simply saying something is unconstitutional, with no further argument given, is merely saying why something procedurally can't be done or would be extremely difficult. It does not mention, and indeed is often used to actively dodge debating the morals and merits of the issue. 
And if at some point a sufficient majority had the ability to change the rules, and did so, many detractors would not be like, "right-o, mates, guess the people have spoken, happy to oblige." Instead, many would likely grumble and screech in opposition because they personally want to do or have something regardless of the law. But, this can pretty much apply to any situation where there is a law in any manner. 
While it might not be meant that way by many, an argument of constitutionality could instead be taken as a challenge to convince enough people of the necessity of changing it. Or, alternatively, a challenge to convince people a given law is actually not unconstitutional. >

We have had bans in the Constitution before and we have repealed them (Prohibition). Generally, the purpose of the Constitution is to expand rights, not to restrict them. 
We have made laws around speech, for example, and  had arguments that claim the law is a violation of the 1st Amendment. The response is always that the Bill of Rights is not absolute and universal. That is, "My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins." My right to do X cannot infringe on your right to do Z.
And if you look at the 2nd Amendment, our attitudes have changed over the years (in large part due to the NRA's PR and lobbying efforts). As a nation, we used to accept that the 2nd Amendment meant reasonable regulations and limits. We now have this slippery slope opposition of any kind of regulations. 
The ATF couldn't even have a computerized database of gun owners until 2016 because it could lead to quickly knowing who has guns (duh). Everything had to be paper-based.
Change is possible. Amendments are possible. They mostly have to be driven by popular demand and shifts in attitude. >

I'm so tired of the citizens fighting against each other like kids, trying to silence and invalidate each other. We're in this together whether we like it or not. >

You'll notice a lot of "that's a fine line" or "that's a dangerous road" rhetoric. The US hasn't added an amendment since 1992 and the 27th was proposed in 1789. The constitution was designed to be recreated generationally so that each new largest generation could make the society they envisioned. Great in theory until boomers take office and tank everything for their own personal and generational gain. >

Here's the thing the people saying "ban assault rifles" 1. ignore that they are already effective banned, automatic weapons are banned so they are just ignorant if not lying about what an assault rifle is. 
But more to the point of the CMV 2. They usually are calling for some kind of specific thing to happen, like for like Biden to write an executive order or California to pass legislation, never are they actually calling for the amendment unless they call for the amendment to the constitution so yeah when they say California should ban guns or Biden should write an EO banning guns "it's unconstitutional" is a perfectly valid rebuttal. If they opened up with let's change the constitution so we can do X then that conversation can be had (and they'll lose it) >

The freedoms granted by it arguably are the reason that 90% of the population isn't slaves. 
People crave and grasp at power. Especially people who shouldn't have it. And they push the envelope and limits of that power to have more and more. 
The constitution wasn't written perfectly. It was written to prevent or delay absolute dystopia and the kinds of conditions that had lead to the french revolution. 
When most people in elected positions have their own, non-citizen-abiding agenda, how can you think any change they agree on will be helpful to us? 
Our Congress will only make changes if the bill includes good shit for themselves and their billionaire funders, at the cost of the public.
This is part of why shit has gotten so messed up. 
Citizens with activist "fix the world" mentality, want everything changed for the better, and want change now
Billionaures and lawmakers take advantage of this, and change everything in ways that are superficially good, but terrible if you read between the lines. 
But if you criticize the problematic things about the change, then you're publicly known as part of the problem. >


1) Many times, though not always, cries of unconstitutionality are totally unfounded. These are easily dismissed by just asking, "Where in the constitution does it say you can't do that?" For example, "Big tech censoring conservative voices is unconstitutional," is just a false statement.

That's a strawman. There are two arguments here.

Big tech censoring conservative voices is a violation of free speech. This doesn't mean the first amendment, it means the principle that people should be allowed to speak their minds.
If big tech is censoring people based on directives or influence from the government, then it is a violation of their first amendment rights.


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.

Both of those issues were amended. And no one is saying it's infallible, but it's worked pretty well for 250 years. 
The original text also included a sunset clause for the slave trade and limited the power of the slave states (the 3/5 compromise). Both of those were requirements to have the document adopted in the first place. The modern US would not exist without the compromises made. 
As for women, the original text neither grants men particular rights or privileges nor denies women the same. The power to grant women the vote, as with nearly every other power relating to elections, was left to the states. Many women in the US were able to vote before the 19th amendment.
There is no case for the original text of the constitution making women second-class citizens.

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

So amend it. It's been done 27 times. Any amendment popular enough would surely be added. If it isn't popular enough, then why exactly are you trying to force it on the people? >

Any argument that says “ban assault weapons” is automatically one that is laughable. OP, assault weapon is a made up term, just like when ignorant people say assault rifle when referring to an AR. 
I’m not even saying we don’t need stricter gun laws. We absolutely do and that’s coming from someone who owns multiple guns, but a lack of education on the subject won’t do you much good when it comes to arguing about it. >

The stupidity of this is mind-boggling! It's the same thing with hand guns. When are all you idiots going to wake and realize that new laws only hurt law-abiding citizens? I'd like to know, from every murder committed with a gun or rifle, how many of the criminals have a legal carry permit, purchased their weapon legally, and are members of the NRA. Most legal owners can produce all three! This may also surprise you, but murder is illegal. How's that law working for you? More people are killed with knives every year. Where's your outrage? By their very definition CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY LAWS! WAKE UP MORONS! >

Makes you wanna print this post and shoot it! >

The Constitution is a living document, yes. At least thats what all my civics trachers say. But it's really damn hard to change it. 
Amending the Constitution >

From where do you think the government derives the authority to ban something? >

When someone uses the "unconstitutional" argument, it might not necessarily mean that they don't agree with whatever change is being proposed.  They may just be realistic in discussing potential solutions.  Especially when it's essentially impossible to get a constitutional amendment passed in today's political climate.
Consider gun control.  They may agree assault weapons should be banned but if the constitution prevents that from being possible then what's the point of considering it as a solution?  I'd bet every dollar I own the 2nd amendment will never be repealed in my lifetime.  Maybe it's more productive to discuss and consider more realistic solutions to the problem than focusing on what is essentially a pipe dream. >


Okay, so we could pass an amendment that repealed the 2nd amendment and you would be totally on board, right?

Good luck with that!
While I generally agree that the Constitution is outdated and should be amended a lot, it suffers from the fatal flaw that changing it requires consensus, and consensus is basically impossible.  You're not gonna get consensus, especially since the status quo benefits some people, and those people need to be on board with losing that benefit.  A great example is the ridiculousness that is the Senate.  Why should California and Wyoming have the same number of Senators?  It makes no sense and greatly dilutes the political power of Californians.  But to get rid of that, you'd need 3/4 of state legislatures to agree, and that includes, you know, Wyoming, which would lose power if the cushy arrangement were changed.  Point is, a Constitutional amendment is unlikely in any sort of controversial measure, unless half the country pulls a Confederacy and we get near-one-party rule.
So "it's unconstitutional" means "it's pretty damn near impossible". >

I would say there is a difference between arguments of why you shouldn't, and why you can't.  "Assault weapons," shouldn't be banned because they're just rifles that people use for legal activities such as hunting, and self-protection.  The reason you can't, in the U.S., is because it would violate the 2nd amendment.
People are going to be close-minded about reasons why they shouldn't be banned because they'll have their pre-conceived notions about them that eithet facts, or feelings, are unlikely going to change.  Being a constitutional right, however, ensures those same people don't have any right to levy their collective ignorance to deny people who want, or need, to use them for legitimate reasons.
The fact that there are already a mountain of laws already outlawing illegal and harmful uses of firearms, there also exists no justifiable reasons to make any changes to such constitutional rights, so that's kind of a moot idea.  Even so, people who likely use their, "2nd amendment rights," to dig there heels
in, are probably going to rally around thr same reasons of why they shouldn't be banned. >

Okay several things here:

How are you defining assault weapons, because there are six different definitions that I have seen various people use.
Many times, though not always, cries of unconstitutionality are totally unfounded. This is true. Platforms do not necessarily have freedom of speech. Platforms are owned by businesses.
The constitution is absolutely possible to be amended. It has steps to amend it. We can and do recognize that as a country. The Equal Rights Amendment has been trying to get support since the 1920s.
"It's unconstitutional" absolutely can be a reason to be against something. You may not like it, but there are absolutely people that hold it as a be all and end all. >

Governments pass unconstitutional laws all the time. Sometimes even knowingly. And then they are struck down. Sometimes. 
Claiming that a proposal is unconstitutional is not in and of itself a bad argument. Saying that you just don't like gun control and it is unconstitutional to ban your assault weapon of choice is bad faith argument. A few retired justices under a Democratic president or two and D.C. v Heller's right of personal gun ownership could go away faster than Roe v Wade. 
On the other hand, a law that would require platforms to host opposing viewpoints is plainly unconstitutional and saying that it is a waste of time to pass it is a valid argument. It just won't necessarily stop anyone. 
Lots of things are unconstitutional and it should be pointed out that trying to do them won't do all that much. Even to the extent that pointing out that the threshold for amending the Constitution is so high that a completely constitutional change by amendment is nearly impossible. >



Yes. It is a false statement. Unless that "censorship" was done at the behest of government. Even government contractors, private entities hired by the government, are subject to certain laws and US Constitution because they are acting on behalf of government (aka: being a government agent).


And we amended the constitution to rectify those two issues. Nothing was stopping the states from allowing women to vote or to outlaw chattel slavery. The constitutional changes made that the standard for the entire country.


Only time owning something was unconstitutional was when the 18th amendment was in effect. Repealing the second amendment would not make owning guns unconstitutional.


My issue with the term "assault weapon" is that there is no clear cut definition of what that actually is (similar to the debate of what a "source of pollution" was that got us the Chevron decision). This is due to it being a statutory term defined differently depending on jurisdiction. So when someone mentions "assault weapons", I have no idea what they actually mean. I owned guns in NYC, where the M1 Garand is considered an "assault weapon" that takes a "high capacity ammunition feeding device", but once you cross city limits into the rest of New York state, M1 Garand is no longer an "assault weapon" that takes a "high capacity ammunition feeding device".
On the other hand, "assault rifle" is a well defined historical term that refers to a light rifle/carbine that has select fire (more than 1 mode of firing) that uses an intermediate power (somewhere between a rifle and a pistol) cartridge. And even legally, in US, they are also machine guns due to being capable of automatic fire (burst mode is considered automatic). >

I won’t bore you with all the arguments to your 3 points. As I think the same points have been made multiple times over now. And it seems like the semantics of what “constitutional” vs “ unconstitutional” has been beaten to death. 
It appears to me that you want it to be easier to amend or “change” the constitution. Why is that?
The constitution is a contract between us the citizens of this country and the government. A document with agreed upon boundaries that the ruling class ( government) will not cross. 
So I guess I’m not sure why you’re so eager beaver to just give those boundaries up. There hasn’t been a government/ ruling body yet in history, that when give full control over their citizens hasn’t abused their power. So I assume that you think this time it would be different? >

It is perfectly reasonable to have different types of laws that require different levels of approval to pass them.  Some laws only need a simple majority, but imagine if core concepts of our government could be rewritten each time congress sways by a couple people.  So the constitution is basically a set of further protected laws that require a stronger approval in order to change them. 
It’s not that we can never ban assault weapons because of the 2nd, it just means we need to change the 2nd amendment first and then we can ban them. >

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. 
Claiming "that change is unconstitutional" is a valid, but very bad argument. This allows you the chance to make rhetorical headway. 
All arguments are good arguments. A bad argument is just your opportunity to make your points, and win people to your side. 
Your core problem, as I see it, is you want X to happen. Not enough people support X to get it past our legislature. Sucks. Now your goal is to convince people to vote with you, right? You want people to support a ban on assault weapons, or whatever else you want to happen. 
Wanting something is fine, but you're the one that has to create the premise for the change since you are the one asking for votes. So when challenged with the "it's unconstitutional" line, that person is actually providing you with the opportunity to state your case. 
Since you need my vote, I'm ok with making you prove to me why the counterargument is wrong. I wont just assume you are right because feelings. You do a pretty good job of countering it here. >

Your argument is self-defeating. No one is saying that passing a new amendment is unconstitutional, they’re saying laws that violate the existing amendments would be unconstitutional. 
You don’t pass an amendment by passing unconstitutional laws. You pass an amendment by proposing an amendment. >

It’s intentionally difficult to amend the constitution. >

I think the point you miss is that their is not nearly enough support to repeal the 2nd amendment and thus when people say its uncomstituional there is an implied and you dont have the support to change it.
It could very well lead to another civil war if progressive states tried to ram a repeal through without following the amendment process. For example if Biden announced that all guns were illegal by his executive order and that despite what the courts say the FBI will start searching houses. It would lead to a civil war. >

Okay, but, the bigger problem is that changing how a law is implemented without changing its wording, especially in the case of making a law more restrictive, flies in the face of the Constitution and the Amendments process.