4 ms·

Hah yeah Denmark is very boring compared to many other countries :) ... and not meant as a warrantless dig against a large country with a high ratio of pistols-

Hah yeah Denmark is very boring compared to many other countries :) ... and not meant as a warrantless dig against a large country with a high ratio of pistols-per-capita, but I did research it yesterday and from what I can tell America hasn't changed the 10 rights in their Bill Of Rights ever, whereas Denmark has made major revisions to its entire constitution multiple times.

darknavi 1y ago
I'd add that some U.S. states are actively attempting to make it harder/impossible to amend their state's constitution! https://missouriindependent.com/2025/09/08/missouri-house-advances-bill-to-make-it-harder-for-voters-to-amend-state-constitution/ https://missouriindependent.com/2025/09/08/missouri-house-ad...
jfengel 1y ago
We change our Bill of Rights all the time. We just do it by "reinterpreting" it, i.e. applying the prejudices of the last 4 or 5 Presidents. Conveniently, none of it actually means anything at all, so it is routinely reinterpreted to mean exactly the opposite of what it might appear to mean. That's not quite true. You still can't quarter soldiers in somebody's house. We Americans have a firm fixed belief in the Third Amendment.
- lazyasciiart 1y ago
  Wait til the national guard gets sick of sleeping on floors during their terrorism deployments to Blue cities
  - alchemical_piss 1y ago
    [dead]
- daniel_iversen 1y ago
  What I said was the US hasn't changed the 10 amendments (as far as I know) - they're written exactly the same way they were hundreds of years ago, right?. Agree with you it seems like people are playing whack-a-mole trying to fiddle with the interpretations, but maybe they need to have a look at the actual core 10 amendments in the first place?
  - jfengel 1y ago
    There is no practical way to amend them. People are absolutely and fervently attached to their interpretations, and the bar to amendment is extremely high. If it were possible to amend them, then it wouldn't be necessary; we'd already agree on a less-unreasonable interpretation. I think it is entirely clear that after 250 years they aren't even slightly fit for purpose, if they ever were. But I cannot see a way to revisit them without re-applying the process under which they were written in the first place.

darknavi 1y ago

I'd add that some U.S. states are actively attempting to make it harder/impossible to amend their state's constitution! https://missouriindependent.com/2025/09/08/missouri-house-advances-bill-to-make-it-harder-for-voters-to-amend-state-constitution/ https://missouriindependent.com/2025/09/08/missouri-house-ad...

jfengel 1y ago

We change our Bill of Rights all the time. We just do it by "reinterpreting" it, i.e. applying the prejudices of the last 4 or 5 Presidents. Conveniently, none of it actually means anything at all, so it is routinely reinterpreted to mean exactly the opposite of what it might appear to mean. That's not quite true. You still can't quarter soldiers in somebody's house. We Americans have a firm fixed belief in the Third Amendment.

lazyasciiart 1y ago
Wait til the national guard gets sick of sleeping on floors during their terrorism deployments to Blue cities
- alchemical_piss 1y ago
  [dead]
daniel_iversen 1y ago
What I said was the US hasn't changed the 10 amendments (as far as I know) - they're written exactly the same way they were hundreds of years ago, right?. Agree with you it seems like people are playing whack-a-mole trying to fiddle with the interpretations, but maybe they need to have a look at the actual core 10 amendments in the first place?
- jfengel 1y ago
  There is no practical way to amend them. People are absolutely and fervently attached to their interpretations, and the bar to amendment is extremely high. If it were possible to amend them, then it wouldn't be necessary; we'd already agree on a less-unreasonable interpretation. I think it is entirely clear that after 250 years they aren't even slightly fit for purpose, if they ever were. But I cannot see a way to revisit them without re-applying the process under which they were written in the first place.