Yet Another School Shooting in the United States

[Channel72]

Tell me what your solution is. Do you want to start by disarming the people who legally own and register their guns and then what? Puppy dogs and Rainbow fairies?

Not necessarily puppy dogs and fairies, although that would be a great bonus. Intuitively, disarming people who legally register their guns might reduce inner city gun violence, since the majority of inner-city criminals are ineligible to purchase firearms legally and thus obtain their firearms via: (A) straw deals from eligible firearm purchasers, (B) illegal guns already in circulation that were initially put into circulation via (A)

Getting rid of (B) would be difficult, and would lie more in the domain of generic law enforcement measures, and admittedly (B) is more of a problem at this point. But (A) would probably be partially addressed by severely restricting legitimate gun purchases, at least in areas that are adjacent to or within the general vicinity of known crime centers, and would probably slowly reduce the number of illegal guns in circulation over a period of many years, as existing guns in circulation were slowly confiscated by police over time.

Of course, we really can't even discuss solutions like that as a possibility in this country, lest the 2nd Amendment brigade barge in and remind us that King George III Obama is just right at our doorstep itching to take our guns and freedoms.

[gizmojumpjet]

Getting rid of (B) would be difficult, and would lie more in the domain of generic law enforcement measures, and admittedly (B) is more of a problem at this point. But (A) would probably be partially addressed by severely restricting legitimate gun purchases, at least in areas that are adjacent to or within the general vicinity of known crime centers, and would probably slowly reduce the number of illegal guns in circulation over a period of many years, as existing guns in circulation were slowly confiscated by police over time.

Of course, we really can't even discuss solutions like that as a possibility in this country, lest the 2nd Amendment brigade barge in and remind us that King George III Obama is just right at our doorstep itching to take our guns and freedoms.

It's funny to see you complain that gun owners will object to the taking of their guns and freedoms at the end of a post where you propose that very thing.

[TheFeniX]

The large majority of gun owners are moderates. They agree with universal background checks and keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and domestic abusers. The support for universal background checks is something like 92%. That's gun control. However, gun owners don't look at it that was as only about 50% actually support "stricter gun control." To them, that's just sensible legislation to keep guns out of the hands of criminals while also not impeding the law-abiding right to own firearms.

But moderate American gun owners are marginalized (or worse) by the NRA and other lobbying groups and have no allies among Gun Control advocates because they are constantly lumped in with the NRA types and considered nearly as bad as criminals. America is a nation of moderates constantly marginalized by the crazies the small block of psycho voters put into office. That's not just an issue with guns. As a moderate gun owner, I have two basic options: support a religious right-wing organization that will defend my right to own a gun above all else and laugh me off as an idiot (or traitor) if I speak out for sensible gun legislation or another group who thinks I'm mentally ill for owning a gun and that somehow polymer stocks make (what they think are) "high-powered assault rifles" more deadly.

[Soontir C'boath]

The obvious solution is for the government to arm law abiding citizens in criminal/gang infested neighborhoods with guns. After all, you stop a bad guy with a good guy having one and they are certainly the ones who need to carry the most. Perform a background check on those who apply, give them a conceal carry permit, and let them choose whether they want a shotgun or a pistol or hell both with enough bullets to last an encounter.

It's a win for everyone. The NRA and gun manufacturers gets to sell a ton of guns to the government and law abiding citizens will be able to protect themselves in shitty neighborhoods. Hell, the second amendment should provide that everyone gets to have one! I have the right to bear arms and my lack of ability to afford one means I am being disenfranchised!

[Channel72]

Getting rid of (B) would be difficult, and would lie more in the domain of generic law enforcement measures, and admittedly (B) is more of a problem at this point. But (A) would probably be partially addressed by severely restricting legitimate gun purchases, at least in areas that are adjacent to or within the general vicinity of known crime centers, and would probably slowly reduce the number of illegal guns in circulation over a period of many years, as existing guns in circulation were slowly confiscated by police over time.

Of course, we really can't even discuss solutions like that as a possibility in this country, lest the 2nd Amendment brigade barge in and remind us that King George III Obama is just right at our doorstep itching to take our guns and freedoms.

It's funny to see you complain that gun owners will object to the taking of their guns and freedoms at the end of a post where you propose that very thing.

Right. That's because like all pro-gun-control advocates, my ultimate goal is to ban all guns, churches, and apple pies throughout America, and replace them with statues of Karl Marx. But I'm reasonable enough to realize that I might have to compromise on this, and therefore I'm willing to settle for statues of Friedrich Engels if necessary.

[gizmojumpjet]

It's funny to see you complain that gun owners will object to the taking of their guns and freedoms at the end of a post where you propose that very thing.

Right. That's because like all pro-gun-control advocates, my ultimate goal is to ban all guns, churches, and apple pies throughout America, and replace them with statues of Karl Marx. But I'm reasonable enough to realize that I might have to compromise on this, and therefore I'm willing to settle for statues of Friedrich Engels if necessary.

"Sure, I don't want to ban all guns, but hey, let's "severely restrict legitimate gun purchases" near areas with high crime rates. I piss on that whole "shall not be infringed" bullshit in the Constitution. What do those words even mean, anyway? LOL! Also I'm not a racist even though my "solution" only impacts the poor minorities who live in these crime ridden areas and who gives a shit if the local crime rate suggests they might need a gun more than residents of the Whitebread Acres gated community, am i rite? These unconstitutional things I'm proposing "probably might" cause gun crime to slowly go down. Now here's the part where I totally ignore the fact that all crime has been going down for literally decades while gun ownership has steadily increased. Ta-daaaaa!"

Literally you.

[Channel72]

"Sure, I don't want to ban all guns, but hey, let's "severely restrict legitimate gun purchases" near areas with high crime rates.

That's not the same as banning all guns.

I piss on that whole "shall not be infringed" bullshit in the Constitution.

I do, in fact, piss on that. I really don't give a shit what the Constitution says. It's a tentative document written with an 18th century frame of mind. There are some great ideas in it, but there's a reason the original authors allowed for the idea of "amendments" - to prevent it from being set in stone and worshiped as some kind of Holy Writ. Sadly, they failed at preventing that as well.

Also I'm not a racist even though my "solution" only impacts the poor minorities who live in these crime ridden areas and who gives a shit if the local crime rate suggests they might need a gun more than residents of the Whitebread Acres gated community, am i rite?

Correct. I am racist, and hate all black people, and also Latinos. And Jews, because why not?

Now here's the part where I totally ignore the fact that all crime has been going down for literally decades while gun ownership has steadily increased.

That feel-good statistic is useless and irrelevant to what I said. You're ignoring the local maxima where it actually matters - namely, urban areas outside major cities with high crime rates. Gun violence has been going up locally - i.e. compare number of murders in Newark, NJ in 2010 vs 2013. (2013 was bloodiest year since the 80s.) While that particular increase is due mostly to a deteriorating police force, similar trends exist for other reasons in other cities throughout the nation.

[Esquire]

I really don't give a shit what the Constitution says. It's a tentative document written with an 18th century frame of mind. There are some great ideas in it, but there's a reason the original authors allowed for the idea of "amendments" - to prevent it from being set in stone and worshiped as some kind of Holy Writ. Sadly, they failed at preventing that as well.

Do you see how that's not a constructive way to approach the problem? The Second Amendment was passed in its current form and won't be going anywhere anytime soon. The 'disarm everybody' avenue is closed; there is no plausible way to make it happen. There's lots of other contributing factors to America's high murder rates, why not work on those instead of slamming our proverbial head against the wall over and over again?

[Simon_Jester]

I really don't give a shit what the Constitution says. It's a tentative document written with an 18th century frame of mind...

Thing is, a lot of people DO give a shit what the Constitution says, because the rule of law is a useful thing to have.

When people start randomly revising the list of rights citizens have on a whim, whenever ideology or a sense of expediency tells them it would be convenient and proper... this generally does not end well.

So if the Constitution should be changed, it should be changed within the existing amendment process... which in turn implies a much higher degree of public consent than is available for "ban guns."

There are some great ideas in it, but there's a reason the original authors allowed for the idea of "amendments" - to prevent it from being set in stone and worshiped as some kind of Holy Writ. Sadly, they failed at preventing that as well.

Even if one does not worship the text of the Constitution, it is still a founding legal document, and as a matter of law, it is the basis for all rights that American citizens now enjoy. The more casually we treat it and the more readily we ignore it, the harder it's going to be to preserve the rights of American citizens.

Do you see how that's not a constructive way to approach the problem? The Second Amendment was passed in its current form and won't be going anywhere anytime soon. The 'disarm everybody' avenue is closed; there is no plausible way to make it happen. There's lots of other contributing factors to America's high murder rates, why not work on those instead of slamming our proverbial head against the wall over and over again?[/quote]

[Joun_Lord]

I do, in fact, piss on that. I really don't give a shit what the Constitution says.

Well thats a very terribad and shortsighted thing. While the Constitution isn't this glorious perfect document written by God and handed down directly to the noble saints that were the Founding Fathers as some might believe while jacking off into an apple pie while wearing white and blue nipple clamps (their pained nipples provide the red), it is still the document our nation's laws and rights are derived and guaranteed by.

The Constituion is what guarantees our free speech, freedom of religion, and due process and protections from cruel and unusual punishment, drawing and quartering of soldiers during peacetime, unreasonable searches and more.

People saying fuck da Constitution call the cops I don't give a fuck is how we get free speech zones, police departments stealing from citizens just because they were stopped while having money, ridiculously long jail sentences in inhuman conditions, and the TSA grabbing grandma bottoms.

Just because you don't like something that many people still considering to be a just and legal law doesn't mean you can just ignore or call it invalid like some idiot libertard saying we should ignore drug laws because they don't work (while advocating for gun laws) or some conservatard saying immigrants should follow the law even though its unreasonable because its the law and the government should be limited (while calling for people to ignore gaymosexual marriage laws and more then okay with the government getting involved in peoples love lives).

[Tanasinn]

I do, in fact, piss on that. I really don't give a shit what the Constitution says.

I'll gladly pay for your one-way ticket to Liberia or time machine ride to Stalinist Russia.

[Shinn Langley Soryu]

Right. That's because like all pro-gun-control advocates, my ultimate goal is to ban all guns, churches, and apple pies throughout America, and replace them with statues of Karl Marx. But I'm reasonable enough to realize that I might have to compromise on this, and therefore I'm willing to settle for statues of Friedrich Engels if necessary.

"Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary." - Karl Marx, Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League (1850)

You can't have a proletarian revolution without armed proletarians.

[Channel72]

I really don't give a shit what the Constitution says. It's a tentative document written with an 18th century frame of mind...

Thing is, a lot of people DO give a shit what the Constitution says, because the rule of law is a useful thing to have.

When people start randomly revising the list of rights citizens have on a whim, whenever ideology or a sense of expediency tells them it would be convenient and proper... this generally does not end well.

So if the Constitution should be changed, it should be changed within the existing amendment process... which in turn implies a much higher degree of public consent than is available for "ban guns."

A lot of the initial amendments were written because of expediency - a lot of the thought processes that went into those initial 12 amendments were influenced by spatio-temporally localized concerns (e.g. the 3rd amendment). But more importantly, there's nothing magical or sacrosanct about the US constitution - and many first world nations do very well without it.

That said, the idea of repealing the 2nd Amendment isn't exactly insane - something like 1/3 of the country is in favor of doing just that. It's certainly not a majority opinion, but it's not exactly out on the extremist fringe.

Anyway, my earlier post was pretty much overtly flippant for the hell of it, because it's just so fucking boring when somebody responds with an argument that amounts to nothing more than "OMG you should respect the Constitution!!"

"Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary." - Karl Marx, Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League (1850)

You can't have a proletarian revolution without armed proletarians.

I'm not interested in a revolution. The current status quo benefits me well enough. I just want to tweak things a bit.

[Patroklos]

Anyway, my earlier post was pretty much overtly flippant for the hell of it, because it's just so fucking boring when somebody responds with an argument that amounts to nothing more than "OMG you should respect the Constitution!!"

Thats not the response you got. Instead people reminded you the Constitution is the basis for the rule of law and the rule of law is a good thing, especially for the particular proposal you suggest. The Constitution has a mechanism for being changed and indeed has been many times. If your ideas lack the support to provide for said change, perhaps there is a reason for that to include your ideas suck. Or they don't and you should endeavor to convince other of that on their merit instead of indulging in fantasies of dictatorial power. You know, that whole democracy thing.

[Esquire]

A lot of the initial amendments were written because of expediency - a lot of the thought processes that went into those initial 12 amendments were influenced by spatio-temporally localized concerns (e.g. the 3rd amendment). But more importantly, there's nothing magical or sacrosanct about the US constitution - and many first world nations do very well without it.

That said, the idea of repealing the 2nd Amendment isn't exactly insane - something like 1/3 of the country is in favor of doing just that. It's certainly not a majority opinion, but it's not exactly out on the extremist fringe.

Of course the Constitution isn't holy writ. Nobody said it was. What I at least meant to say was - more or less as Patroklos just pointed out - the Constitution is the founding document of American government. There are procedures for changing it, but they quite rightly require a vast majority of public and/or legislative support. 30% approval is as good as 3% for the purpose of repealing an amendment. 30% for means 70% opposed, after all.

Anyway, the point is that trying to repeal the 2nd Amendment is not going to work in any current or forseeable political climate. Try addressing the efficient, rather than proximate causes of America's high murder rate instead of focusing on this one unworkable half-issue. Banning guns can't be done and wouldn't work even if it could.

Personally, just so we're clear, I'm with you. We don't need personal arms in this day and age and it would at least reduce suicide and accidental death rates to get rid of them. See above, however; all the money spent lobbying for gun control would be better spent advocating for enforcement of existing laws and a functional mental health system.

[K. A. Pital]

The constitution of Stalinist Russia was very advanced for its time. Idiots who blindly worship a piece of paper do not even understand that more often than not, it is not the document itself but the way legal norms are treated by the government is what matters.

Other than that, yes, many first world nations do exceptionally well without the US constitution.

The US is the closest to a Third World shithole among developed nations, the Sick Man of the First World. And frankly, it should be like this. When you blindly worship a republic founded by fucking slavers and built on relentless genocide, expulsion and extermination of the natives, half of which was a slavocracy untl the mid-XIX century, a republic of rich white fucktards, if you glorify its bloody foundations - you fully deserve all the mockery you get for clinging to a piece of paper written by some old bastards nobody across both oceans even cares about.

Sorry, I understand that this is hard for the US exceptionalists, but no, the constitution is not worth upholding if the ideas in it are shitty. A total rewrite along secular social-democratic Northern European lines would certainly improve the situation.

If someone needs guns, apply for a hunting license and have a safe at home. Safe storage, safe carry, separation of gun and ammunition. Culture, for fuck's sake.

Maybe gun control is not worth it. But in the US, nothing is worth it. There is no control over guns, neither over corporations. Or over its own government that kills people on secret lists and black-bags folks to Gitmo after extralegal "talks" like fucking mafiosis do. In the US, labour laws are shit, environmental protection standards are ridiculous. And people are obsessed with their guns. Sounds like a nightmarish place, sounds like the nation can't advance at all. It was bad when I visited it, and it remains every bit as bad as it was.

How does it happen that other people get to enjoy free speech without worshipping the US constitution? Maybe it is because the have a different constitution that is superior? Hah.

[Simon_Jester]

The constitution of Stalinist Russia was very advanced for its time. Idiots who blindly worship a piece of paper do not even understand that more often than not, it is not the document itself but the way legal norms are treated by the government is what matters.

Yes. And given that this is true, which of the following is a better attitude to take towards rights outlined in a constitution:

A) "If our national constitution grants a right, the citizens should have that right, and we should not try to subvert that right unless we have wide popular support that permits us to actually change the constitution"

OR

B) "Frankly, I don't care what the constitution says, I think it would be good policy to do X, so it doesn't matter if legally people have a right which would be infringed on by doing X. There's a way to amend the constitution, so it really doesn't matter what the constitution says, even if I have nowhere near enough support to get it changed on this issue."

I don't know about you, but (A) seems a lot less likely to create a situation like Stalinist Russia than (B) does. It is much easier to make sure you keep a democracy when all constitutional rights are taken seriously. And much harder once you concede that the state is allowed to pick and choose which constitutional rights it's going to forget about based on 'practical considerations.'

Other than that, yes, many first world nations do exceptionally well without the US constitution.

The US is the closest to a Third World shithole among developed nations, the Sick Man of the First World. And frankly, it should be like this. When you blindly worship a republic founded by fucking slavers and built on relentless genocide, expulsion and extermination of the natives, half of which was a slavocracy untl the mid-XIX century, a republic of rich white fucktards, if you glorify its bloody foundations - you fully deserve all the mockery you get for clinging to a piece of paper written by some old bastards nobody across both oceans even cares about.

Do you even comprehend the idea that people who happen to live in the US might actually care about enforcing constitutional rights without "blindly worshipping" anything about their country? Are you actually listening to anything here except the strawman in your head?

Because if you can't tell the difference between "thinks it's a good idea to NOT selectively ignore the rights of their citizens as defined in the only legal document that actually does so" and "blindly worships a bunch of old bastards and their piece of paper..."

You have become an unworthy excuse for a political commentator.

Maybe gun control is not worth it. But in the US, nothing is worth it. There is no control over guns, neither over corporations. Or over its own government that kills people on secret lists and black-bags folks to Gitmo after extralegal "talks" like fucking mafiosis do. In the US, labour laws are shit, environmental protection standards are ridiculous. And people are obsessed with their guns. Sounds like a nightmarish place, sounds like the nation can't advance at all. It was bad when I visited it, and it remains every bit as bad as it was.

The solution to this problem is more rights, not less. It is more enforcement of existing rights, not less. Stepping back from "we take the constitution seriously" is one of the ways America got into this mess, and doing it harder will not get us out of this mess.

And quite sincerely- there is a noticeable slice of the American population who consider all claims by the left to respect the constitution to be a farce precisely because of the gun rights issue, and as a result ignore the left when it protests that other important rights are being neglected. And those people do have votes, even if you disagree with them.

Pressing for gun control and saying "frankly I don't care if that's a constitutional right" have actively weakened our nation's ability to enforce or honor other constitutional rights.

How does it happen that other people get to enjoy free speech without worshipping the US constitution? Maybe it is because the have a different constitution that is superior? Hah.

How will selectively ignoring the constitution we have automatically lead to a better one?

Are you familiar with the idea of 'precedent?'

[K. A. Pital]

Yes, I am familiar with the concept of precedental right. I was and am not convinced in the slightest that this concept is superior to the alternatives - or is a virtue in and of itself.

Yes, I think the left should be more aggressive in their criticism of the constitution, and they should point out that there is a vast number of nations with exceptional social well-being record which do not base their law on the US constitution OR Anglo-Saxon precedental right system in general.

Saying that you care about something written two centuries ago, kind of like religious fanatics care about the Bible, Quran or other holy writ, only makes you vulnerable to the opposing side's argument that you admit gun ownership and gun carry are inalienable rights. It is a dead end, basically. You lost the argument at the start.

How can you argue a system of gun controls like in Europe would be consistent with the US constitutional provisions, knowing that most likely it will not be? This leave you in the surrender trap unless you criticize the constitution itself, thus focusing on its possible amendment and change.

Once again: constitutions of dictatorships often contain the same text as the modern democratic constitution does. They are just not being followed. There is no need for amendments because, had the text actually been followed, the place would likely not be a dictatorship in the first place. Changing the constitution has nothing to do with dictatorship, and it is perfectly possible to estalish a real tyranny with only tiny, superficial changes to core legal documents like constitution. You have not refuted this point. Many dictatorships arose in nations with the most modern constitutions granted from on high - and it did zero good.

You say that the only document outlining citizen rights in the US is the constitution. That is pretty much hideous in and of itself. How can it be that such an important thing is limited by such a narrow document? This itself should put the whole legal system of the US under scrutiny. Not that a system which produces ridiculous outcomes when people rot in jail for smoking a bit of pot, but are not subjected to the slightest scrutiny when it comes to their gun rights, isn't simply sick at the core and should have been subjected to scrutiny a long time ago.

Many nations had several rewrites to their constitution, the constitution could be replaced with a 50-year cycle, which often takes into account newer legal phenomena, new rights concepts et cetera. It does not mean the end of history, some grand mistake or something. When the amendments become very numerous and more important political concepts than the original body of text, one seriously wonders if it warrants a full replacement. But of course, anathema.

And forgive me for stating my opinion on the US political climate. It is childish, unproductive and every so-called constitutional debate leads to stalemate and irrelevance. Sorry for stating the unwelcome truth that the US legal and political system by now is so rotten and corrupt at the same time that it's likely beyond repair.

The US is already a superdictatorship of the global age, Ersatz-British Empire. All this constitution talk does not prevent routine infringement on rights that are considered normal in, say, Europe. And without any constitutional provisions for these rights! Some of them are provided by recent laws or even a whole body of laws. But it does not make these rights less important or easier to take away.

And forgive me for thinking that the right to an 8-hour working day and a cap on the maximum working time for full-time workers are more important rights than the right to a goddamn handgun! Listen to yourself. You think that I care whether the working time regulations are set by a small law in no way equal to the constitution? Or maybe I care far more about the maintenance of theae rights by a government that actually matters, and therefore I have to be constantly politically active to ensure the legal body changes in the direction I want it to change, as opposed to resting on some fake laurels because something just made its way into the constitution X years ago and it is now nigh impossible to change?

What is more important - political literacy and involvement in politics or following the rules of the US political debate? Sorry, I am not bound by these rules. If I see that there is a system clearly superior to the US one, I say so. And if the US citizens are so bothered by changes to largely irrelevant things for a modern nationstate, like gun trade, etc. (really - how big a part of life are guns, huh?) then they fully deserve everything I said. Full stop.

[Grumman]

How can you argue a system of gun controls like in Europe would be consistent with the US constitutional provisions, knowing that most likely it will not be? This leave you in the surrender trap unless you criticize the constitution itself, thus focusing on its possible amendment and change.

What makes you think we want to argue that European laws would be constitutional if implemented in the US?

[K. A. Pital]

Because European gun laws do not forbid gun ownership; they just regulate the firearms market and firearms safety (storage, practice, transport rules etc.).

However, even such a system apparently is incompatible with the US constitution.

There are two options here: admitting that responsible gun ownership with safe storage and strict licensing similar to the driving licensing process (which is also quite strict in Western Europe) is a shitty idea, or admitting that the parts of US law, including parts of its constitution, are shitty.

While safe and responsible strictly-licensed gun ownership is a very good idea which makes people (a) seriously consider the necessity to own a firearm (b) seriously consider safety of storage and transport (c) take mandatory courses to get a hunting license and a firearms license which ensure safe handling of firearms.

Simple as that. If you think there is something else to this (RESPECT OUR FOREFATHERS!), you are wrong. The question is why I disrespect the constitution. I gave an answer. I am not obliged to respect nonsense when I see nonsense. End of story.

[Channel72]

Honestly, something like the "Second Bill of Rights" proposed by FDR, and partially realized (sort of, but not really) by LBJ's Great Society, is probably a much better starting point for a national Constitution than the 18th century relic we're still using. But at least those damn bloody redcoats can't quarter in my living room anymore! Fuck those guys.

[Channel72]

What is more important - political literacy and involvement in politics or following the rules of the US political debate? Sorry, I am not bound by these rules. If I see that there is a system clearly superior to the US one, I say so. And if the US citizens are so bothered by changes to largely irrelevant things for a modern nationstate, like gun trade, etc. (really - how big a part of life are guns, huh?) then they fully deserve everything I said. Full stop.

I'm not sure how much you're aware of this, but if you grow up in the United States, you are subjected to a constant political narrative surrounding the US Constitution that borders on hagiographical reverence. As young children in elementary school, we are constantly taught how the US Constitution is this game-changing foundational document - that basically freed us all from tyranny and granted us all of our rights and freedoms. I hesitate to use the word "brainwashing" - but let's say it's very similar to religious indoctrination.

I really see little difference between the reverent attitude I observe among Jews who recount the Exodus from Egypt every Passover, and the same reverent attitude I observe among American history teachers and grade school teachers who recount how the brave Founding Fathers fought for our freedom, and then Thomas Jefferson received the Constitution from atop Mount Sinai and bequeathed it to the Israelites Americans.

We've even got a Judas character in our national hagiography - (Benedict Arnold) who we're all taught to hate because he betrayed the revolutionaries. Now I'm sure he's in the 9th circle of Hell along with Judas and Hitler.

Anyway, that pretty much explains why you have a generation of adult Americans who cringe at the idea of disrespecting the Constitution.

[gizmojumpjet]

There are two options here: admitting that responsible gun ownership with safe storage and strict licensing similar to the driving licensing process (which is also quite strict in Western Europe) is a shitty idea, or admitting that the parts of US law, including parts of its constitution, are shitty.

Kids, look! An example of species falsus dichotomous! Quick, grab the kill jar!

Anyway, that pretty much explains why you have a generation of adult Americans who cringe at the idea of disrespecting the Constitution.

Disrespect the Constitution all you want, but if you want talk U.S. gun legislation without taking the 2nd amendment into account you're just bloviating because you're just going to suggest a bunch of do-nothing laws that will be struck down by the SCOTUS and which won't actually address the problem you pretend to be trying to solve.

[K. A. Pital]

Having a serious debate about the pure merits of an idea seems to be impossible in the US. Because universal healthcare, responsible gun ownership (falsely called by the media "gun control"), strict labour laws and driving licensing rules come from Europe, they are not indigenous ideas and therefore must be opposed. They are also nowhere to be found in the Constitution.

Origin matters much more than substance. Even if the constitution was full of every awesome idea ever had by man, having a system which gives superiority based on origin of a right is extremely dangerous. It limits the inalienable rights to those outlined in the origin document (which gets more and more outdated, even its language), leaving citizens vulnerable to misinterpretations, throwbacks and finally denying basic rights because they are not listed in the constitution.

This is, quite simply, wrong. It maybe impractical to argue with people a nation so painfully focused on its tiny historical lifespan that any questioning of its foundations are seen as hostile acts and provoke an outcry. But it sure does not make the ideas that are brought forward here less worthy of consideration. It just means these ideas cannot be seriously considered by the US population because of their childish attitude that demands respecting certain laws out of legal tradition - without considering their merit.

The idea that no democratic nation ever rewrites its constitution because it's supposed to be the only thing protecting human rights is also wrong. Is France so awfully terrible for rewriting their constitution in an attempt to make it better? If the US has only the constitution protecting human rights, and if you rewrite it or lose it or suspend it, human rights will cease to be protected at all, the nation has bigger problems than just gun violence.

Respecting the constitution is not equivalent to using it forever. I am sure the original French ones have a nice place in the museum for them, as do many other constitutions.

[gizmojumpjet]

The US has rewritten its constitution 33 times so far. Who said no democratic nation ever rewrites its constitution? Please provide a quote unless you've decided to start tossing out strawmen along with those false dilemmas.