4 ms·
Isn't that kind of the point? Americans can't decide if they want new laws or to amend the constitution before deciding what the ideal would be. Your point is
by rwj 11y ago
Isn't that kind of the point? Americans can't decide if they want new laws or to amend the constitution before deciding what the ideal would be. Your point is to shut down discussion before they get that far.
In any case, IANAL but the US has not been crippled by absolutism in the pass. There are limits to free speech, for example (defamation, libel, fire!). Are you sure that stricter background checks would be found unconstitutional?
- LyndsySimon 11y ago> There are limits to free speech, for example (defamation, libel, fire!) Those are limitations on the improper use of speech, not on merely possessing the means to communicate. > Are you sure that stricter background checks would be found unconstitutional? Found unconstitutional? I'm not at all sure of that, as the judicial system doesn't lend itself well to prediction. Would they be unconstitutional? Yes, without a doubt.
- zeveb 11y ago> > Are you sure that stricter background checks would be found unconstitutional? > Would they be unconstitutional? Yes, without a doubt. I don't really think so. The State has the power to deprive citizens of their rights — to include their right to life — so long as it observes due process, so it has the ability to deny firearms ownership to e.g. felons (otherwise one would argue that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to arms of prisoners …). I think that it can require sellers to check whether or not someone is permitted to receive an item before transferring it. I just don't know that this is particularly effective. Honestly, weapons crime is not a problem of weapons: it's a problem of criminals.