Why is it so controversial to suggest that the USA needs a new constitution?

The 'good guy with a gun' BS isn't even the reason for the amendment. It's so that the government's military/police force isn't the only group with a gun, which would allow them to do whatever they wanted. Think about what was going on in the decades around when the constitution was written. There was a group of enforcement, the British, who were stealing from, I mean taxing, the citizens to death. They were occupying their houses, taking their property if they so chose to do that. They were doing whatever they wanted. If the citizens didn't have their own weapons they would have had to put up with the colonization forever, basically slaves to the government ruling over them. If things are so bad for the citizens that they're willing to fight to the death to make their lives better, then things must be pretty bad. I don't ever want to see that happen in the US because the citizens aren't able to fight back and the government can do whatever they want.

The only people who claim there needs to be constitution are liberals whenever they get an outcome they don't like. Our adherence to the constitution is what has kept the US from becoming a totalitarian hellhole, unlike many areas of Europe (i.e. the UK where you can be thrown in jail for making a mean joke) or Australia and New Zealand (i.e. covid concentration camps). The leftist solution to the inhibition to their "progress" is always top-down authoritarianism in the form of throwing out old laws and systems and replacing them with new ones that they believe will give them the utopian version of the world they want (which is exactly what the constitution is meant to protect us from).

I agree . They also failed to see how socially conservative the average Hispanic voter is. The most pro life voter in the US is a Hispanic mother who is catholic. Most Hispanics absolutely detest the socially liberal policies from the left, as well as their immigration policies. I truly think the left didn’t mind losing some of the votes as they expected more minority support. They just missed the mark. The longer an immigrant is in the US, the more conservative they seem to become.

You're right. We should let any dingbat amend the constitution. Every 4 years instead of presidents overturning each other's executive orders, we should let them change the constitution instead...

... It sounds like it's working as intended.

Why separate them? Combine them. No more mens races and women's races. Just human races. That would also include everyone in the LGBTQIA+ alphabet soup. Total equality. Then the best will always win. If it happens to be a woman-then she reigns supreme. Then everyone gets the same prize money. Purses can go deeper so more people win money.

Until this happens, true equality will never be achieved. There will always be someone complaining that they are being discriminated against or not getting enough attention. And it would push everyone to test their limits.

“Liberals” shouldn’t have a problem with the constitution. They should have a problem with how far they’ve strayed from Liberalism.

I think it needs an overhaul, but good luck with that! It is going to take a huge meltdown for people to take that on and while things are fraught now, we have not yet reached the point where that will realistically happen. The left and right are heading in two different directions and can barely agree on the most basic things. Even passing a budget is often rough going, ineffective, and delayed. The gun legislation last week was an exception. But it was pretty watered down and won't do a whole lot for us.

This country is splitting and the differences might well be irreconcilable. And the biggest wedge, abortion, just drove us that much further apart. The right's agenda will be to outlaw abortion nationwide, and they may very well pull that off over the next election cycle or two. That's going to force blue states to rebel and ignore the edicts and if we have a strong-arm president (as most of the republican front runners DeSantis, Trump, Cotton, et al. are wont to be) they'll send in forces to force their will onto those areas that do not comply. At that point it will either be a repressive authoritarian state or heading to violent strife. Or just cutting off food and power to the cites.

It's a dark picture but I just don't see a path forward, other than a split where states form regional coalitions. Northeast/New England and the West Coast. And virtually the rest of country gone to a quasi-religious far right state. Any pockets of progressiveness swallowed up. Used to think the upper Midwest would hold together but nope. That's not going to happen, especially with abortion as the dividing issue.

If Americans only had muskets, then they would have never defeated the British. It was the American rifle that beat the British, and the British learned a lesson from the Americans to create their own rifle regiments to use against Napolean. Perhaps through your ignorance of firearms you confuse the firing mechanism, flintlock in the case of mid-18th century firearms, with the type of weapon. However, regardless of the weapon of the day, for the people to remain on parity with the government and thus remain free, at a minimum, the people should be armed in the same manner as the government infantryman.

And here’s why I’m a complete f’ing moron. I posted this in the wrong thread.

Why separate them? Combine them. No more mens races and women's races. Just human races. That would also include everyone in the LGBTQIA+ alphabet soup. Total equality. Then the best will always win. If it happens to be a woman-then she reigns supreme. Then everyone gets the same prize money. Purses can go deeper so more people win money.
Until this happens, true equality will never be achieved. There will always be someone complaining that they are being discriminated against or not getting enough attention. And it would push everyone to test their limits.

Again. Why does this keep happening? Am I this dumb?

To an extent you're right. We broke the U.S. Constitution by amending it to allow for the direct election of senators. The entire Federal Government was not intended nor structured to operate with direct elected senators. In the two houses of Congress, the people were to elect their local U.S. representatives and their local state representatives were to select their respective state senators. All democracy was to be locally based resulting in the House representing the interests of the people and Senate representing the interests of the states as determined by the locally elected state legislatures. We need to go back to the state legislatures selecting the senators.

Better start those urban gardens now. Plenty of vacant lots in the cities. Put them to use, it just takes a little work to do so.

Wrong, why do you think so many are talking about making a change?

How similiar is todays USA compared to 1776?

No, the country would be better off if right-winger seceded and formed the theocracy they so desperately seem to want. Would love to see how that works out for you backwards hicks.

Crispy is right on, our 2A rights have already been infringed upon because we are not permitted to match firepower with our government. Thank God we still have 2A intact as much as it is.
Our constitution is brilliant and created in a way that was nearly genius.

We are the Worlds most prosperous, powerful, advanced country because of our constitution...Why would we want to change things? Look, you lost on abortion, take your losses and go home.

I don't know why you feel so attacked that you feel it's appropriate to resort to name calling; that's sort of the whole point of my original post.

No, I don't have an outline drafted. I do have ideas for what "the new one should say that the current one doesn't," though. I'd personally prefer a semi-presidential or parliamentary system of government over our current full-presidential/single executive system, for example. I would also like a system that favors proportional representation.

250 years ago the constitution worked and could be amended reasonably. Then the country spent 90 years trying to avoid a civil war by constantly adding free states and slave states to keep the votes balanced to the point that the constitution can't be amended. Then came manifest destiny with empty states like South Dakota and North Dakota having as much say as New York and California. Now the constitution can never be changed. That is why we have gridlock.

What will happen is people in states like New York and California are just going to stop supporting the federal government by not pay their taxes, not enlist if there is a war, not obeying directives from the federal government . This will go on until some state just says we aren't part of the USA anymore. Once one state leaves, you will see the country splinter.