You can say this for every law. What a lame argument. The majority is always punished because of what the minority does.
OT: Gabe Kapler
- Thread starter Knightmoves
- Start date
- Status
All concealed carry does is leads to more gun violence.
You have a bunch of paranoid gun nerds carrying. They know they have a gun and therefore are overly aggressive/obnoxious. Someone starts a fight with them and instead of taking the beating they shoot them and claim self defense.
The times someone actually uses concealed carry to save themselves from being robbed is basically never.
You have a bunch of paranoid gun nerds carrying. They know they have a gun and therefore are overly aggressive/obnoxious. Someone starts a fight with them and instead of taking the beating they shoot them and claim self defense.
The times someone actually uses concealed carry to save themselves from being robbed is basically never.
No it isn't always. Not at all.
Our laws are written to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. Sometimes, a determination is made that some rules or reasonable limits be established for the greater good. And that can makes sense where it can be shown to be effective at protection while also not interfering with individual's rights.
That's not the same as punishing law-abiding individuals for the crimes of non-law-abiding individuals.
People speed or drive drunk; lots and lots of people die from this every year. They give the speeders tickets and take away the license for individuals who go too far. They don't ban cars or driving or alcohol.
Jealous spouses use bats or golf clubs or other stuff laying around their homes to kill cheating partners. Such people are arrested. They don't ban bats or golf clubs or kitchen knives or garden shears, etc.
All states implement some form of rules or limits for the use of guns. And I am all for the states doing that. As long as the rules/limits are reasonable and shown to protect us. I posted a long list of proposed gun laws that are stronger than what we have today. I don't view any of those things I'm proposing as punishing the innocent in any way; do you?
What do you have against those proposed new gun laws? How could you possibly know, without enacting and implementing those laws, that we need any more laws than what I listed?
It's only when we try to make rules about guns (banning semiautomatics for example) that we go too far and actually punish innocent people. It crosses the line from protecting society to demonstrably making individuals less safe. The 40 individuals at the birthday party in WV, who were saved by a woman with a semiautomatic weapon, would be happy to testify to that reality.
You said "always". So please list which laws we have here in the US where the law demonstrably makes innocent individuals less safe?
no one should consider sensible gun laws a threat to the 2nd amendment .
what should be thought of is sometimes statistics using one state as the model to follow are really not that accurate and using illness ( like cancer) as a way to prove a point might backfire if you notice the restrictions placed on tobacco because of its connection to lung cancer.
For example Alaska is one of the smallest states population wise , but is one of the states pointed out by gun reform advocates as being one with a big problem when it comes to its residents use of firearms causing unnecessary harm.
As for how many firearm deaths are caused by those committing a crime with a gun they have no right to hold, we also must look at how they obtained it and wonder if making insurance be part of gun ownership and make that apply to any and every state.
That's not taking the right to carry away, just making sure if it is used unnecessarily the victim can be compensated
Too often the illegal firearm is easily obtained because the owner didn't secure it properly and the victim of the crime gun was used in has to pay his/her own medical expense caused by being shot.
Wondering what type of gun kills is something worth pondering, but finding a way to put gun deaths at a minimum without taking away the right to own a gun from responsibly owners needs to be the main concern without side issues making that much harder by nit picking the effort to enact fair and balanced gun reform laws that place restrictions on some guns and magazines, but not restrict anyone's right to carry
When homicide statistics are put out Police use of deadly force is not complied in that statistic , unless it was an illegal act, which makes a states homicide rate what it’s meant to show, illegal killing and not a police officer protecting the public or an act of self defense.
Concerning the right to own an AR15 or any weapon like it, a different rule should apply that to (say) a shotgun
(Example), if you want to own a semi automatic assault weapon, you must apply for a special permit that makes proof of safe storage, insurance coverage, drug testing, enhanced background check with mental evaluation as part of being approved..
Too often the fight against making any type of gun law ( weak or strong) involves the idea that the law being discussed will take away the rights of all to own a gum legally and makes like ( in one way or another) looking into someones background just leads to denial because that infringes on a person's 2nd amendment rights.
That type of reasoning makes gun reform hard to accomplish and is the object of those using it.
We have far too many dying because of guns being allowed in the wrong hands and to often that is because of carelessness on the gun owners [part or the way the government allows loopholes in gun law that make it easy for bad guys to obtain weapons along with those who shouldn't be legally permitted to own a gun buy them legally.
Yet the criminal is used to thwart gun reform and the claim of they will take your guns away while allowing crimminals to have them is a major part of what the anti gun reform crowd uses to make people think the worst when they hear the words "gun reform law"
what should be thought of is sometimes statistics using one state as the model to follow are really not that accurate and using illness ( like cancer) as a way to prove a point might backfire if you notice the restrictions placed on tobacco because of its connection to lung cancer.
For example Alaska is one of the smallest states population wise , but is one of the states pointed out by gun reform advocates as being one with a big problem when it comes to its residents use of firearms causing unnecessary harm.
As for how many firearm deaths are caused by those committing a crime with a gun they have no right to hold, we also must look at how they obtained it and wonder if making insurance be part of gun ownership and make that apply to any and every state.
That's not taking the right to carry away, just making sure if it is used unnecessarily the victim can be compensated
Too often the illegal firearm is easily obtained because the owner didn't secure it properly and the victim of the crime gun was used in has to pay his/her own medical expense caused by being shot.
Wondering what type of gun kills is something worth pondering, but finding a way to put gun deaths at a minimum without taking away the right to own a gun from responsibly owners needs to be the main concern without side issues making that much harder by nit picking the effort to enact fair and balanced gun reform laws that place restrictions on some guns and magazines, but not restrict anyone's right to carry
When homicide statistics are put out Police use of deadly force is not complied in that statistic , unless it was an illegal act, which makes a states homicide rate what it’s meant to show, illegal killing and not a police officer protecting the public or an act of self defense.
Concerning the right to own an AR15 or any weapon like it, a different rule should apply that to (say) a shotgun
(Example), if you want to own a semi automatic assault weapon, you must apply for a special permit that makes proof of safe storage, insurance coverage, drug testing, enhanced background check with mental evaluation as part of being approved..
Too often the fight against making any type of gun law ( weak or strong) involves the idea that the law being discussed will take away the rights of all to own a gum legally and makes like ( in one way or another) looking into someones background just leads to denial because that infringes on a person's 2nd amendment rights.
That type of reasoning makes gun reform hard to accomplish and is the object of those using it.
We have far too many dying because of guns being allowed in the wrong hands and to often that is because of carelessness on the gun owners [part or the way the government allows loopholes in gun law that make it easy for bad guys to obtain weapons along with those who shouldn't be legally permitted to own a gun buy them legally.
Yet the criminal is used to thwart gun reform and the claim of they will take your guns away while allowing crimminals to have them is a major part of what the anti gun reform crowd uses to make people think the worst when they hear the words "gun reform law"
An old article (2021) but should be still relevant
>While many advocates of concealed carry licensing laws that allow more guns in public spaces cite a desire for improved safety, there is no evidence to suggest that expanding public carry reduces violence. Nationally, gun usage in self-defense occurs in less than 1 percent of violent crimes; in fact, guns are often used offensively by CCW permit holders, such as by escalating arguments outside the home.7
Moreover, studies have shown that using guns for self-defense is no more effective than other defensive measures.8 On the contrary, recent studies have concluded that states with more permissive concealed carry laws—including “shall-issue” states9 such as Wisconsin—have higher rates of gun homicides than states with regulations that provide law enforcement agencies the discretion to deny CCW licenses.10 Similarly, a 2019 study concluded that the adoption of shall-issue or right-to-carry laws were associated with a 10 percent to 15 percent increase in violent crime rates a decade after implementation.11<
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/concealed-carry-linked-increased-gun-violence-wisconsin/
edit:
(about the source, when reading some posters articles I sometimes expose the sources leanings.
So it’s only right to expose the one I just put up)
The Center for American Progress was created in 2003 as a Democratic alternative to conservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI).
I feel to have an honest discussion one must try to be honest about sources put up if their might be a question about if they lean towards the liberal or conservative agenda
Gun reform should be an issue we don't let politics make hard to talk about or accomplish
Last edited:
Once again I will point out that I gave a big long list of proposed stronger gun laws earlier in the thread. Laws that do not exist anywhere today, at least so far as I'm aware. And my list addresses all the stuff you just mentioned.
I'm not opposed to gun laws. I'm only opposed to outright gun bans of semiautomatic weapons (which SCOTUS is not going to allow anyway) and to a few stupid gun laws (mostly only in NJ and CA and a couple other states) that don't actually do anything to protect anybody but can actually, in some cases, make us all less safe.
In the conclusion of that highly biased article that cherry picks certain numbers to try to sell an anti-gun narrative, it says:
"Policymakers should take steps to correct this by improving permit requirements and passing complementary measures. "
Which is exactly what I've been proposing in this thread.
If Wisconsin implemented my proposed gun laws, they would see a sharp decline in illegal gun activity. Because law-abiding people don't run around shooting one-another or committing crimes. So keep the guns out of the hands of people who are a problem. Don't keep them out of the hands of those who are NOT the problem.
*links article from progressive website that uses only one state in its research*
I often see "solutions" to gun violence, like the ones you're proposing, that make owning a firearm more financially prohibitive. Do you not believe that a constitutional right to self defense should also be exercised by lower-income individuals? Do you think the cost-to-entry to exercise that right should be four figures ($1,000+)?
I understand you're not opposed to sensible gun laws, understand I'm not pushing over the top ones and also not asking for outright bans on some weapons or magazines, just want restrictions added to those type of weapons that really aren't personal protection or hunting guns but part of making mass killings easier to accomplish.
I just feel some of the roadblocks being put up to stop sensible gun laws from being taken seriously use protecting large magazines and semi assault weapon ownership as part of saving one's second amendment rights.
Instead of allowing more requirements for ownership to be allowed, the cry is that owing them is a second amendment right and forgetting other guns have some form of restriction place on them.
example: a ex convict can't legally purchase a gun in most cases.
Perhaps the reasoning is flawed is the reasoning is entirely based on Heller. I don't know.
And while I am all for permitting people to carry weapons, I also am all for enacting constraints upon who is allowed to carry that are even more stringent than who is allowed to purchase or own a gun in the first place. But of course SCOTUS cannot address that; they can only address what's before them.
However, as you can see in this thread, nobody has any interesting in debating or discussing my proposed strengthening of gun laws. Because my proposals don't include "banning of guns" which will never make it past the current SCOTUS. The most likely result of the "must ban guns" attitude by anti-gun folks is that SCOTUS will wind up overturning the fully automatic weapon ban.
Legislative overreach creates situations in which the court must rule narrowly which, because more reasonable legislative efforts weren't attempted due to the overreach, we wind up less safe, as we would most likely be if the fully automatic weapons ban is overturned (until such time as achievable gun laws are enacted and enforced).
The sane path forward is to set achievable goals that make us safer. Which are laws that don't attempt blanket prohibitions of guns, but instead seek to create or expand laws that prevent those individuals who meet already established legal precedents for curtailing individual rights, constitutional or otherwise, from obtaining them.
yes I do believe low income individuates should have the same right as everyone else.
Owing a gun is a right, just like the responsibilities of gun ownership shouldn't be overlooked because of one's financial status.
The type of gun owned should be the deciding factor of gun insurance and not if someone can afford insuring his/her gun so if that gun is used wrongly the victim can be compensated properly .
That's a flaw in my proposals for sure. But I think there are ways around it, legislatively. Means-tested tax credits, tax rebates or deductions, or stuff along those lines.
The more critical thing is to ensure much more thorough background checks, to ensure the background checks are performed in all cases (even family transfers), to ensure they're performed regularly, not just once during purchase. And also to ensure that someone purchasing a weapon be able to qualify with it before they're allowed to take it home.
It ain't perfect and folks from both sides of the debate will hate it as too onerous or not enough.
In any event, I am not for any federal law here. So it'd be up the states to consider and implement what they think makes sense for them. I just think most states would be better off with the stuff I'm proposing which keeps gun ownership and carrying possible, but takes reasonable steps to prevent the wrong people from having guns.
That should actually make law-abiding gun owners happy because it means we'd have less gun violence committed by nutjobs or criminals, so all the cries of "ban guns" can die down some.
Other than the never ending news stories on these exact scenarios, here’s a study for you.
Easiness of Legal Access to Concealed Firearm Permits and Homicide Rates in the United States
Objectives. To examine the relation of “shall-issue” laws, in which permits must be issued if requisite criteria are met; “may-issue” laws, which give law enforcement officials wide discretion over whether to issue concealed firearm carry permits or not; and homicide rates. Methods. We compared...
ajph.aphapublications.org
With regard to the current climate which is defined by the Heller decision, I agree with you.
However, I certainly understand the anger of those looking for more restrictive regulations. They have a right to be pissed off that Heller defines the debate, because Heller is a joke of a ruling. But it is the precedent, so we have to live with it.
Last edited:
I'm actually pretty angry about the kids in TX (and in all other school shootings). I simmer about it. I think we can do lots of common-sense stuff that won't fail to pass muster in the courts. But, at least in part, because the national conversation is always about banning guns, we never actually do anything.
And there's no excuse for not doing some pretty basic stuff in our schools to protect kids that just never seems to get done, or done correctly. And much of that stuff is fully achievable, requires no legislation or court approval.
How people step right past the fact that the kid in TX just strolled right on into the school is beyond me. That should be the focus, the priority. Because it's low-hanging and very effective fruit.
The study is about carry laws and suicides and unintentional gun deaths cited right at the top are unlikely to be affected much, if at all, by carry laws. Certainly the study doesn't show how they would be casually affected.Other than the never ending news stories on these exact scenarios, here’s a study for you.
Easiness of Legal Access to Concealed Firearm Permits and Homicide Rates in the United States
Objectives. To examine the relation of “shall-issue” laws, in which permits must be issued if requisite criteria are met; “may-issue” laws, which give law enforcement officials wide discretion over whether to issue concealed firearm carry permits or not; and homicide rates. Methods. We compared...ajph.aphapublications.org
And the study doesn't actually prove causation at all. It just shows a possible correlation that may be indicative of a causal relationship. The study, to its credit, lists the limits of conclusiveness of it's findings.
Also, the study fails to (a) how many of the homicides were perpetrated by first time criminals using legal guns versus repeat offenders who weren't legally permitted to own, let alone carry, guns, or (b) breakdown the homicides by the type of gun used, which seems awfully important if considering banning some sort of gun.
But, for the sake of argument, let's take the study to mean that concealed carry leads to more deaths.
Excluding suicides and unintentional deaths, we're left with ~13K homicides, according to that study. And in 2015 (the year studied) the US population was ~320M. That's a rate of about 0.0041%.
In 2015, there were ~35K automotive deaths, or a rate of about 0.01%. Yet nobody suggested we ban cars.
In 2020, there were ~602K cancer deaths, or a rate of about 0.18%. Yet cigarettes are still legal, as is sunbathing and many other known cancer causing activities.
I have never and will never made a generalized argument in which I claim that legal gun ownership doesn't entail greater risks to public health. That would be stupid. But using cars also entails greater risks to public health at nearly double the rate of guns. In fact there are all kinds of tools and behaviors that endanger public health.
The question is how we choose to balance public health risks and individual rights.
Incidentally, all this is unrelated to solving mass shootings or school shootings, which is the real subject of the thread, I think. This other stuff is predominately about ordinary gun violence.
MN has pretty low ordinary gun violence, close to NJ's, and, IIRC, something like 326% more carry permits issued than NJ. And both states permit the ownership of semiautomatic rifles, and MN has no mag limits. So to me, if we're interested in what helps with lowering ordinary gun violence, we should probably examine what NJ and MN have in common with their gun laws. And then look at what's missing in other states laws where they have more gun violence.
Simple...because guns can cross state lines. Trust me, I wish they couldn't make it here.
Most Americans have more regard for the Supreme Pizza than the Supreme Court- with great reason. And that was before today. 25% will be a high water mark.
Confidence in Supreme Court is at lowest level in 50-year recorded history, Gallup poll finds
The American people’s confidence in the Supreme Court is at its lowest level ever recorded, according to a Gallup poll released Thursday. The poll found that only a quarter of Americans have …
thehill.com
I mean, considering some states make voting cost prohibitive, and you need a paid permit to protest for example, yeah why not charge?
What guns are crossing state lines into NJ that aren't legal in NJ but are legal elsewhere?
The guns that most make sense to be concerned about are all illegal nationally (i.e. fully automatic weapons) and nearly all states ban those in addition to the national ban. With only a few specific model exceptions, semiautomatic rifles and handguns are legal in NJ just like everywhere else. AR-15 style and AK-47 style rifles are perfectly legal in NJ.
Only real difference is magazine limits and while NJ's 10 round limit is slightly helpful for rifles, it's practically pointless for handguns. Swapping mags is very fast with only a tiny bit of practice. Again, I'm okay with rifle mag limits because they can be a little helpful due to weight and the slightly longer mag exchange time. But handgun mag limits are just plain stupid do to their sheer uselessness - a feel good measure with no pragmatic value at all.
Anyway, federal law already requires anybody who is a gun dealer to have an FFL and anybody purchasing a gun from a gun dealer must pass a background check (in all states). But the background check is pretty weak and relies too much upon voluntary submission of records by the military (dishonorable discharges) and the states (domestic violence or other criminal records, etc.).
So in theory, everybody in every state gets a background check which is intended to prevent guns from being sold to the wrong people. But in practice, it doesn't work as desired pretty much anywhere, including in NJ.
In my list of proposed strengthened or new gun laws, I address this. I would modernize and strengthen and automate a lot of the background check process (both the data submission and the check itself). And again, the background check is federal law already - I'm just proposing we fix it so it works as intended (and also add an appeals process for those who are denied due to a recordkeeping or reporting mistake).
Few firearm restrictions in states sending crime guns to N.J. -
>A New Jersey Monitor review of data maintained by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives found that, between 2019 and 2021, 83% of the 7,411 New Jersey crime guns for which law enforcement could identify a source emerged from outside the Garden State. Law enforcement could not identify a source state for an additional 4,366 New Jersey crime guns.
About 60% of the guns for which a source state was identified came from just six states: Pennsylvania (15.7%), Virginia (10%), Georgia (11.6%), North Carolina (8.8%), South Carolina (8.2%), and Florida (5.5%). Pennsylvania was the origin of more crime guns used in the Garden State save New Jersey (16.8%) itself.<
https://newjerseymonitor.com/briefs/few-firearm-restrictions-in-states-sending-crime-guns-to-n-j/
But there's so much data missing from that, without which we have no way of knowing how to "fix" it or if it's even fixable.
For instance:
- Is this problem unique to NJ? What percentage, by state, of crime guns in any state originated from a source outside the state?
- How many of the crime guns in any state were obtained legally from an FFL dealer who had to perform a background check?
- How many of the crime guns were obtained illegally, violating existing federal law and/or the laws of each source state?
- How many of the guns were legal, and how many illegal, on the source and crime states?
I don't know the answers to these questions. I would guess that for many states, a pretty high percentage of guns used in crimes originated in some other state. But I would also guess that most the guns used in crimes in NJ are actually legal to use in NJ and that while most were purchased legally in the state they were purchased, it just highlights what I posted earlier about how weak the mandatory national background checks are.
Do the stuff on my list of proposed gun laws, and it'll cut down on legal guns being used in crimes, or at least it'll cut down on people who ought not to have guns obtaining them despite the federal law that is supposed to block it.
"But there's so much data missing from that, without which we have no way of knowing how to "fix" it or if it's even fixable."
But that data could be used as part of looking at a problem and finding ways to fix it.
For every piece of date supplied, one can say it's not enough to go by and claim that data doesn't prove nothing.
Keeping guns from falling into the wrong hand shouldn't be as big as a problem as it is now and has been for a long time.
From the Texas Tower shooting in 1966 to the Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas shooting people have talked about keeping guns out of the wrong hands, but little has been done to end that.
Too often the problem of finding a fix is fought by those who have their minds dead set against restricting access to some guns, passing federal gun laws that trump a state's version of that law and the states that pass strict gun laws are stymied by those who find guns more readily available in other states and bring them back to the state they couldn't buy a gun in.
The shame of America when it comes to passing a fair, balanced and sensible gun law is :
no matter what is in that law the cry of "they're taking away our guns" will prevail and those who want to keep access to guns easy for all will put up roadblocks to hinder that laws passage by making mountains out of molehills over some of the findings that is used to validate that law being passed.
This gun bill now in congress is sorely needed, but it doesn't address all the issues needed to make it do the job right and instead of being for the whole nation, defers some of what's in it to the states and not all states will be doing it the same way..
But no matter what might not be in it, what's in it will help
I won't knock the gun bill outright, just say I hope it does the job, despite my reservations , and if something proves needed to be added, it will be added with minimal fuss.
But that data could be used as part of looking at a problem and finding ways to fix it.
For every piece of date supplied, one can say it's not enough to go by and claim that data doesn't prove nothing.
Keeping guns from falling into the wrong hand shouldn't be as big as a problem as it is now and has been for a long time.
From the Texas Tower shooting in 1966 to the Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas shooting people have talked about keeping guns out of the wrong hands, but little has been done to end that.
Too often the problem of finding a fix is fought by those who have their minds dead set against restricting access to some guns, passing federal gun laws that trump a state's version of that law and the states that pass strict gun laws are stymied by those who find guns more readily available in other states and bring them back to the state they couldn't buy a gun in.
The shame of America when it comes to passing a fair, balanced and sensible gun law is :
no matter what is in that law the cry of "they're taking away our guns" will prevail and those who want to keep access to guns easy for all will put up roadblocks to hinder that laws passage by making mountains out of molehills over some of the findings that is used to validate that law being passed.
This gun bill now in congress is sorely needed, but it doesn't address all the issues needed to make it do the job right and instead of being for the whole nation, defers some of what's in it to the states and not all states will be doing it the same way..
But no matter what might not be in it, what's in it will help
I won't knock the gun bill outright, just say I hope it does the job, despite my reservations , and if something proves needed to be added, it will be added with minimal fuss.
Remember, you can't use logic to argue a point with someone who didn't use logic to get to their position in the first place.
will be in every state it's not permitted now..
Concealed Carry will be a fact of life in every state
Most Americans have more regard for the Supreme Pizza than the Supreme Court- with great reason. And that was before today. 25% will be a high water mark.
Confidence in Supreme Court is at lowest level in 50-year recorded history, Gallup poll finds
The American people’s confidence in the Supreme Court is at its lowest level ever recorded, according to a Gallup poll released Thursday. The poll found that only a quarter of Americans have …
The last two days have severely impaired respect for the Supreme Court. Perhaps it’s time for Biden and Congress to expand the number of justices. Unfortunately, I assume that would require eliminating the filibuster. Which isn’t going to happen.
Last edited:
Perhaps elected officials should rather focus on DOING THEIR JOB? Pass the appropriate legislation or advocate for amendments. The court isn't here is do their dirty work and make up stuff. If elected officials are unwilling to tackle the tough issues of society, resign and let someone else lead the way.
Watch and learn, starting at the 3 min mark:
We should consider constitutional conventions which would include a more accurate reflection of society
A constitution prepared by and representing only 7% of the population with an overly burdensome if not impossible process to institute change is a flawed document for our current society
Stupid idea. We have the amendment process to change the constitution as needed. Stop whining if other people don't agree with you on certain issues. Advocate and try to change minds. That's the political process we all can engage in.
The amendment process is nearly impossible. Even the 14th amendment had to deny southern legislative bodies certain individuals from serving to pass
Let’s reverse a constitution written by white males and have one written by only black females and require everyone to live under that for 200 plus years. Your head would implode
The amendment process works fine, plenty of amendments have passed over the years. Stop whining. People just need to re-learn how to compromise. The new gun safety bill was a pleasant surprise on this front. Let's see more of this.
It is not whining to point out the flaws in the constitution and to want a better process
Almost every individual State and all democratic countries have had constitutional conventions to ratify a document more reflective of the current population
If you are going to have justices fall back on the circumstances that existed in the 1700’s to determine how the constitution impacts current society it is time to have a constitution prepared and ratified by all demographics not a small sliver of our society
It's pointless whining since there is a well used amendment process to make changes. Man up and advocate for what you want. Work hard to elect people that share your views (or run for office yourself). And remember, most issues don't even need amendments, just new laws via DC or states.
You have a fair and equal opportunity to engage in the process. Stop whining when other people don't agree with you.
None other than Jefferson thought the Constitution should be rewritten, in his estimation, every twenty years to reflect the needs of the living which he appreciated would differ materially from the needs of his generation. Madison disagreed, arguing that the amendment process would better serve the needs of future generations. Both of them would no doubt be stunned that it has been amended a mere 27 times, with many of those amendments inconsequential,
Unfortunately, we have moved very far from the requirements to preserve a Republic espoused by the members of the Congress of 1787. They assumed the citizenry would be well educated and engaged. We objectively fail that standard. They (actually, most) assumed political party or faction would be unnecessary and avoided due its its tendency to divide. They assumed that church would decisively be separated from state. They assumed that the seniority and six year tenure of Senators would lead them to act in the long term best interest of the country. They assumed majority would rule in Congress, with a Presidential veto providing a check in Congressional excess. The filibuster and cloture were not discussed or addressed in 1787. Those would be foreign constructs to them. They feared a standing national army, and wrote the Second Amendment to allow states to maintain militias. The term bear arms was almost exclusively used by them in a military sense. They didn’t prescribe a number of justices for the Supreme Court. Jefferson himself put through legislation during his tenure as President to change the number. The list goes on.
I don’t think a new convention would ever be called and doubt much progress would be made even if it was. small states wield too much power, and they won’t give it up. Who would see their rights taken from them and gleefully accept the outcome? I think the best we can do is to neutralize the power of party or faction. We are increasingly subject to the passions of the far right and far left, The majority of the country is in neither camp and are far more moderate in their views. Unfortunately, moderates tend to go about their lives while passionate extremists push objectives and candidates in primary Elections (Another feature of our modern day state the founders would not recognize). These extreme passions need to be subdued, and I’d suggest altering primary elections so all candidates ran and were voted on at the same time by the the population regardless of party. The top two vote getters, regardless of party, would advance to a general election. This one move would not solve all the ills (like justices legislating from the bench), but it would likely lead to a more moderate, representative set of elected officials, In heavily Republican areas, for example, you’d likely have a more extreme candidate advance alongside a more moderate one in a general election, and the moderate would likely attract Democrat voters In said district or jurisdiction. This would no doubt better serve the people. It would not serve entrenched parties, which is why this change would be simple but not easy. But easier than a constitutional convention.
I agree with you Frida
Imagine a constitution written only by and for black women. Where white males were considered 3/5 of a person. 50 plus years after ratification white females were allowed to vote but only black women held office. After about 100 years white men were allowed to vote but all their financial rights were controlled by their spouse. Men gave up jobs to raise kids and take care of elderly parents.
Now 200 plus years later we tell them all laws will be reviewed based on the document prepared and the societal conditions of over 200 years ago.
We tell them don’t whine you should pass an amendment but overwhelming the legislative bodies needed to pass the amendment is made up of black females.
Imagine a constitution written only by and for black women. Where white males were considered 3/5 of a person. 50 plus years after ratification white females were allowed to vote but only black women held office. After about 100 years white men were allowed to vote but all their financial rights were controlled by their spouse. Men gave up jobs to raise kids and take care of elderly parents.
Now 200 plus years later we tell them all laws will be reviewed based on the document prepared and the societal conditions of over 200 years ago.
We tell them don’t whine you should pass an amendment but overwhelming the legislative bodies needed to pass the amendment is made up of black females.
I understand the position and can see why groups other than white men may view the Constitution in that manner. However, I wonder whether a different view may be more appropriate.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights prescribed the operating principles for an American government that has some issues but, as a whole, has served the country well over nearly 250 years. It hasn’t included all members of society equally over that 250 years, as you correctly point out. Would it not be better to fix those inequities and allow all groups equal rights and protections than to assume the principles themselves are flawed because they were written by white men? Said differently, I’d be concerned about a movement to cancel the Constitution.
While I am not unhappy about the SCOTUS carry decision, I am unhappy about the Roe v Wade overturn which is unarguably robbing women of the most fundamental freedom a person can have: the right to make decisions about their body and whatever's inside it.
I've long thought that, as long as the US only has only two viable parties, SCOTUS should be managed so that it always has a one justice majority appointed from a president of the party opposite the party currently in control of the White House. If a third viable party should emerge at some point, then the extra justice should be from the party other than the third party president and opposite the party that holds the most control of congress, with the Senate being the tie-breaker.
That makes the court as balanced as possible and also ensures a fully functional check on the executive branch. Doing that prevents any party from holding control over all three branches of government at any one time, which prevents ideologically extreme agendas (ideological extremism always being very stupid no matter what the ideology).
OTOH, I also think people should have to have an IQ over, say, 150 to vote. Which would rule out a bit over 99.9% of everybody participating in this thread. But that's an argument for a different day. And, I suppose, no matter what the day, I'm unlikely to win very many people over to the 150 metric.
- Status
Similar threads
