This is a subverse designed to encourage adult discussion spanning the entirety of the political spectrum. All are welcome, from Libertarians to Authoritarians, Democrats to Republicans, An Caps to Anarchists, Socialists to Fascists to Communists, Green, Blue, Black, White, Purple with Yellow Polka dots, whatever color, persuasion, or affiliation, this is a place for you to post your thoughts, articles, and engage in discussion meant to foster understanding.
Politics is best when we try to avoid personal attacks, limits on discussion, censorship, trolling, shilling, racism, homophobia, antisemitism, or any other forms of bigotry and malfeasance.
Election 2020 Politics Sticky
Politics 2017 Christmas Theme sticky
Nov 2016 sticky on new CSS
This subverse belongs to the community of users. Users are invited to post meta-threads about v/politics and I will gladly sticky them. @flyawayhigh
Use the "Report Spam" link to report spam and someone will review the report. J-mods have the ability to remove duplicate noncommercial spam.
v/politics is for all politics.
v/uspolitics is for US politics only.
v/worldpolitics is for international or non-US politics.
v/politicalnews is dedicated to virtually censor-free politics and news
v/news is for news around the world.
v/usnews is for domestic news only.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] DeltaBravoTango 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
There’s nothing in the constitution that says the bill of rights can’t be amended. I certainly wouldn’t support it, but it can legally be changed. It would go against the original spirit, but the founding fathers didn’t want to lock us into a fixed constitution. That’s literally the whole point of having amendments.
[–] [deleted] ago (edited ago)
[–] DeltaBravoTango 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
Of course they are natural rights, that’s why Madison didn’t want them in the constitution. He was worried that by listing rights, they would be interpreted as an exhaustive list. The bill of rights was a compromise with the democratic-republicans to get the constitution adopted, and that’s why they included the ninth amendment. I’m talking about the legality of removing the second amendment, not the morality. Of course people have the right to keep and bear arms. I’m just saying that it is totally within the rules to repeal the second amendment if the process is actually followed.