4 ms·

The US has a written constitution and list of amendments; one of the downsides of this (vs. the largely cobbled-together unwritten constitution that the UK oper

The US has a written constitution and list of amendments; one of the downsides of this (vs. the largely cobbled-together unwritten constitution that the UK operates under) is that you can make arguments that hew to the letter of the law, rather than its intent. The current situation re: mass shootings and proliferation of guns is that the Supreme Court parsed the awkardly-phrased 2nd amendment as mandating that ownership and possession of weapons be completely unrestricted and unabridged. Part of it is that the version of the 2A that was passed by the states differs from the one ratified by the first Congress. The original text: > A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The ratified text: > A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The ultimate solution is to amend the 2nd amendment, but that would require substantial effort and consent of all states.

krapp 7y ago
>The ultimate solution is to amend the 2nd amendment, but that would require substantial effort and consent of all states. You're probably right, we can't have any serious gun control in the US as long as the 2nd Amendment remains as is, post Heller. But any state supporting the amending or repeal of the 2nd Amendment, despite that being a perfectly legal and Constitutionally approved process, will find itself turned into another Northern Ireland and any Senator or Congress person approving such a measure, should it pass, will spend the rest of their life avoiding sniper fire. Which is why no serious attempt to touch the 2nd Amendment will ever happen. The best we can do is what we've been doing - regulate around it as much as possible, even if such attempts are doomed to be ineffective.
- HBKXNCUO 7y ago
  >The best we can do is what we've been doing - regulate around it as much as possible, even if such attempts are doomed to be ineffective. We can do much better than that. We can take a deep look into our own society and address the underlying reasons why people are trying to hurt themselves and others in such large numbers. For instance, we could try to figure out why over 20,000 people per year are killing themselves with firearms. Is some aspect of their lives making them despair? If so, let's take a serious look into the causes, and try to correct them. There are parts of the country with extremely low rates of violence and near universal gun ownership. Let's figure out what's going on in those parts of the country, and try to make the rest of the country like that. Are there any commonalities we can identify between people who attempt to commit mass atrocities? If so, let's figure out what they are, and see if there's anything we can do to reduce the incidence of those commonalities in the general population. How does that sound?
  - krapp 7y ago
    >How does that sound? Sounds fine, I support everything in your comment. However, I believe keeping guns out of the hands of people who would harm themselves and others is also a legitimate part of the solution. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court and Constitution of my country disagree with me.
    - HBKXNCUO 7y ago
      Everyone believes that trying to keep guns out of the hands of people that would harm themselves and others is a part of the solution. That's why there are laws against felons possessing them.
akerl_ 7y ago
It’s worth noting that the Supreme Court did not parse the 2nd amendment to mean ownership of weapons must be “completely unrestricted and unabridged”, as evidenced by the variety of restrictions in place across the US, both at the federal and state level. It’s pretty clear that we should be evaluating ways to adjust gun law in the US to prevent the kinds of violence that are occurring under the current set of rules, but we should accurately portray the current state of the world while we’re having that evaluation.

krapp 7y ago

>The ultimate solution is to amend the 2nd amendment, but that would require substantial effort and consent of all states. You're probably right, we can't have any serious gun control in the US as long as the 2nd Amendment remains as is, post Heller. But any state supporting the amending or repeal of the 2nd Amendment, despite that being a perfectly legal and Constitutionally approved process, will find itself turned into another Northern Ireland and any Senator or Congress person approving such a measure, should it pass, will spend the rest of their life avoiding sniper fire. Which is why no serious attempt to touch the 2nd Amendment will ever happen. The best we can do is what we've been doing - regulate around it as much as possible, even if such attempts are doomed to be ineffective.

HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>The best we can do is what we've been doing - regulate around it as much as possible, even if such attempts are doomed to be ineffective. We can do much better than that. We can take a deep look into our own society and address the underlying reasons why people are trying to hurt themselves and others in such large numbers. For instance, we could try to figure out why over 20,000 people per year are killing themselves with firearms. Is some aspect of their lives making them despair? If so, let's take a serious look into the causes, and try to correct them. There are parts of the country with extremely low rates of violence and near universal gun ownership. Let's figure out what's going on in those parts of the country, and try to make the rest of the country like that. Are there any commonalities we can identify between people who attempt to commit mass atrocities? If so, let's figure out what they are, and see if there's anything we can do to reduce the incidence of those commonalities in the general population. How does that sound?
- krapp 7y ago
  >How does that sound? Sounds fine, I support everything in your comment. However, I believe keeping guns out of the hands of people who would harm themselves and others is also a legitimate part of the solution. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court and Constitution of my country disagree with me.
  - HBKXNCUO 7y ago
    Everyone believes that trying to keep guns out of the hands of people that would harm themselves and others is a part of the solution. That's why there are laws against felons possessing them.

akerl_ 7y ago

It’s worth noting that the Supreme Court did not parse the 2nd amendment to mean ownership of weapons must be “completely unrestricted and unabridged”, as evidenced by the variety of restrictions in place across the US, both at the federal and state level. It’s pretty clear that we should be evaluating ways to adjust gun law in the US to prevent the kinds of violence that are occurring under the current set of rules, but we should accurately portray the current state of the world while we’re having that evaluation.