Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Moadar]

How about the part where slaves not being people and not having that Second Amendment right extended to them? Does that count?

Could say that for all rights at one time.

- - - Updated - - -

as if that wasn't intentional?

Doubt they cared about offending people then.

[Edge-]

Could say that for all rights at one time.

I agree. Which is why I argue any "originalist" interpretation of the Constitution is significantly flawed and ignores the actual intent at the time, while projecting very select modern views upon it.

[uuuhname]

Doubt they cared about offending people then.

they cared A WHOLE LOT about not offending the land/slave owning class, who they all were. and by offense in this case if you didn't know it, was the threat of not owning other humans as chattel slaves.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree. Which is why I argue any "originalist" interpretation of the Constitution is significantly flawed and ignores the actual intent at the time, while projecting very select modern views upon it.

or, what most do which is flip from being an originalist to an open interpretation when it fits your argument better.

[Edge-]

or, what most do which is flip from being an originalist to an open interpretation when it fits your argument better.

Our current majority on the SCOTUS, yes.

I'm a consistent proponent of both reviewing the Amendments regularly to see if they're still useful/functional - in case they need to be updated or are no longer serving their original purpose - and interpreting them in the context of modern society.

[PhaelixWW]

I'm a consistent proponent of both reviewing the Amendments regularly to see if they're still useful/functional - in case they need to be updated or are no longer serving their original purpose - and interpreting them in the context of modern society.

You're in luck! There's a process for that!

It involves creating a new Amendment to modify/repeal the original one.

[Edge-]

You're in luck! There's a process for that!

It involves creating a new Amendment to modify/repeal the original one.

Wonderful, except we know that this is practically impossible in the modern political environment. See...well...this thread and the discussion around the Second Amendment and whether or not it makes sense anymore. Most of the defense of which rests on SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED as the core of the argument, as if that's a whole-ass, self-contained argument and not just four words.

[Endus]

You're in luck! There's a process for that!

It involves creating a new Amendment to modify/repeal the original one.

Now, how easy is it to pass such an Amendment? Is it gonna be achievable, given the political status quo?

Because if not, the procedure to amend anything is non-functional, and that it's non-functional just demonstrates how deeply flawed and broken the American system of governance is. This is the USA collapsing. It's literally happening. You're in the middle of it. This is what that looks like. Governance can't happen, because of political gamesmanship, and an electorate that, on the whole, doesn't give a shit about any of it (that's looking at averages, so don't @ me that you're super concerned, you're an outlier).

If you can't pass laws and get things done, your governmental system has failed. Not "might fail". It's already there. Th the failure state. It lasts until one side dies or something so awful happens that it shakes things up. And we're talking like "Russia nukes several American cities" or "there's a bloody civil war taking millions of American lives" awful. 9/11, to make a comparison, happened in the middle of this collapse and did nothing but accelerate the collapse.

In 100 years, political studies students are gonna learn about the American Collapse and pegging the start point roughly around Nixon's adoption of the Southern Strategy.

[Elegiac]

Now, how easy is it to pass such an Amendment? Is it gonna be achievable, given the political status quo?

Because if not, the procedure to amend anything is non-functional, and that it's non-functional just demonstrates how deeply flawed and broken the American system of governance is. This is the USA collapsing. It's literally happening. You're in the middle of it. This is what that looks like. Governance can't happen, because of political gamesmanship, and an electorate that, on the whole, doesn't give a shit about any of it (that's looking at averages, so don't @ me that you're super concerned, you're an outlier).

If you can't pass laws and get things done, your governmental system has failed. Not "might fail". It's already there. Th the failure state. It lasts until one side dies or something so awful happens that it shakes things up. And we're talking like "Russia nukes several American cities" or "there's a bloody civil war taking millions of American lives" awful. 9/11, to make a comparison, happened in the middle of this collapse and did nothing but accelerate the collapse.

In 100 years, political studies students are gonna learn about the American Collapse and pegging the start point roughly around Nixon's adoption of the Southern Strategy.

I'll also note that the "just pass an Amendment, 4head" argument never seems to be required of the people insisting that the state should protect individual firearm ownership rather than relying on inventing common law out of whole cloth about something clearly referring to organized militia.

[PhaelixWW]

Wonderful, except we know that this is practically impossible in the modern political environment.

...as it should be, to change the Constitution.

The problem is that you don't want it to be easy to alter the Constitution; you just want it to be easy to alter the 2nd Amendment. I do not, for one second, think that you'd be fine with a GoP-led Legislative/Executive combination being able to alter the Constitution with the same process as creating a law. Nor do I believe, for one second, that you'd be okay with handing the typically-conservative-but-even-more-so-now Supreme Court an even freer hand at not just interpreting the Constitution, but rewriting it at will.

[Endus]

...as it should be, to change the Constitution.

Why on Earth should that ever be true? That's a legislative weakness/failure, in and of itself.

[PhaelixWW]

Why on Earth should that ever be true? That's a legislative weakness/failure, in and of itself.

Nah.

/10c

[Edge-]

...as it should be, to change the Constitution.

No, as it shouldn't be. This used to be a think we did fairly often. Now it's something that most of the country - more one political party - views as inconceivable and unreasonable.

The problem is that you don't want it to be easy to alter the Constitution; you just want it to be easy to alter the 2nd Amendment.

I'll thank you for speaking on my behalf, but this is not my position.

I do not, for one second, think that you'd be fine with a GoP-led Legislative/Executive combination being able to alter the Constitution with the same process as creating a law.

That's not a measure I have ever stated, or would agree to.

Nor do I believe, for one second, that you'd be okay with handing the typically-conservative-but-even-more-so-now Supreme Court an even freer hand at not just interpreting the Constitution, but rewriting it at will.

No, because the current SCOTUS is an abomination that's been partisan politicized by Republicans over half a century.

https://www.businessinsider.com/25-p...rt-poll-2022-6

Is it any surprise that confidence in the SCOTUS is at rock bottom right now?

[PhaelixWW]

I'll thank you for speaking on my behalf, but this is not my position.

Then what form would your Constitutional review take? Who would get that power? How would it not be abused?

[Edge-]

Then what form would your Constitutional review take? Who would get that power? How would it not be abused?

I don't have all the answers, I'm just sitting here saying that the current system isn't working.

As to the latter, unless the Republican party decides to stop being authoritarian liars, it will always be abused. Which isn't something that any system can fix, the Republican party needs to fix itself. But they won't so the status quote remains and the people who like the status quote will argue this remains fine.

[Elegiac]

Then what form would your Constitutional review take? Who would get that power? How would it not be abused?

The way the French do it is a fair enough method, honestly.

Either;
a) Consent of both houses of the legislature and the head of the executive branch, followed by national referendum, or
b) Consent of three fifths of a joint session of the legislature and the head of the executive branch.

Still a higher bar to pass than regular legislation but far less unwieldy than the present American system.

Regarding abuse - failing to revise aspects of the Constitution that are unjust or unworkable (see; the incarceration exception to the Thirteenth Amendment, life terms for SCOTUS justices, the skewed apportionment in the legislature) are in of themselves forms of abuse.

[PhaelixWW]

I'm a consistent proponent of...

I don't have all the answers...

I really don't see how these two statements are non-contradictory.

Keeping in mind that "consistent proponent" is not the same thing as "kinda agree in general". Like, it's one thing to want something strongly but have no idea how to achieve it, and it's another thing entirely to use that nebulous desire to argue against other things, especially when you argue enough to consider yourself a "consistent proponent" of the idea.

As to the latter, unless the Republican party decides to stop being authoritarian liars, it will always be abused.

On the contrary: the GoP cannot abuse the Amendment process as it stands.

- - - Updated - - -

The way the French do it is a fair enough method, honestly.

Neither the French nor Canadian methods would allow for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment in the US, either.

[Edge-]

I really don't see how these two statements are non-contradictory.

"I think we should review Amendments more often, but I'm not exactly sure the exact mechanism that would be best suited to this."

I'm not sure why that's such a confusing concept?

[Moadar]

"I think we should review Amendments more often, but I'm not exactly sure the exact mechanism that would be best suited to this."

I'm not sure why that's such a confusing concept?

You think that unless the review doesn't go how you would like it to.

[Elegiac]

Neither the French nor Canadian methods would allow for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment in the US, either.

I'm speaking more generally as to what the review process might look like rather than talking about the 2A specifically.

Getting rid of that entirely would be a much longer term political and social undertaking. Revising its nonsense Bush-era interpretation to something that permits more sensible regulations is the more eminent 'ought'.

[PhaelixWW]

"I think we should review Amendments more often, but I'm not exactly sure the exact mechanism that would be best suited to this."

I'm not sure why that's such a confusing concept?

I'm not sure why you excluded the portion of the post that explained in more detail?

Weird.