111–120 of 145 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that a state with 1/60th the population of another state still gets the same say in the matter.
That is by design, though. Just because state A has a big population doesn't mean it gets to strongarm state B.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are 2 schools of thought on the constitution. Living constitutionalists believe that the constitutional adapts or changes and can be fluid based on "modern" beliefs and the interpretation changes to allow for that. Originalists believe the text is strict and not up for debate and that the contract of the constitution is fixed. Most of what we are seeing is based on these 2 ideas in conflict.
That whole debate feels like a distraction. If the majority wants gun control don't debate the meaning of the text, amend it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that a state with 1/60th the population of another state still gets the same say in the matter.
That is by design, though. Just because state A has a big population doesn't mean it gets to strongarm state B.
So low population state "strong-arming" the majority is OK? The design is poor, it is Tyranny by the minority.
I think I read somewhere recently that the majority of Americans were in favour of stricter gun reforms, yet no real change I laws seem to happen and all the current presidential candidates over in the US seems to not even dare touch the subject. I find it reprehensible and puzzling how they’ve got this weird relationship with guns, but it’s interesting how often people are using a certain interpretation of their con…
First, apologies for the wall of text. I started off thinking I was just going to write a few sentences and here we are. This topic is a bit more complicated than an outside observer would be able to pick up on without perhaps doing a bit more research. One common misconception people from other countries seem to have is that all the change is being made at the federal level. In fact, quite a lot of legislation is pr…
Someone "universally against gun control measures" here. I'd be interested in knowing how I'm as ignorant as people who want to regulate things based on scary buzzwords, vaguely describing items that they generally lack any knowledge of.
I'd assert it's possible to hold this position, yet also be quite well informed about the history, mechanics, laws, and social consequences surrounding firearms and their accessories. For example, one could simply consider retaining the individual agency that this part of the Bill of Rights has preserved for us as being of higher utility than any of the downsides that additional (or existing) legislation purports to address. My personal view is a bit more nuanced than that (in fact, I agree with most of your post), but wanted to point out that one could start with different base axioms/heuristics, examine the same data, and end up with a different end perspective via perfectly rational (i.e., non-ignorant) reasoning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it's true that a majority of Americans want stricter laws. We generally want more authority to carry without restriction, as seen in the rise of states that allow for concealed carry without a license. The laws are nonsensical, since there's many times more firearms in the country than people. Nevermind that we share a porous border with a country known for powerful drug cartels. At any rate, I'm a 10th…
>I don't think it's true that a majority of Americans want stricter laws. The majority of Americans want fewer mass shootings of random individuals out in public.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Republicans only care about gun rights when Democrats are in office. Same with Democrats about abortion. Neither do anything to reinforce either right when they control a majority of the branches of government.
>Neither do anything to reinforce either right when they control a majority of the branches of government. Unfortunately "control a majority of the branches of government" isn't enough to get legislation passed. You need control of house, senate, and presidency. The senate is particularly difficult because of filibusterers, so you need 60% votes, not a simple majority.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are 2 schools of thought on the constitution. Living constitutionalists believe that the constitutional adapts or changes and can be fluid based on "modern" beliefs and the interpretation changes to allow for that. Originalists believe the text is strict and not up for debate and that the contract of the constitution is fixed. Most of what we are seeing is based on these 2 ideas in conflict.
That whole debate feels like a distraction. If the majority wants gun control don't debate the meaning of the text, amend it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First, apologies for the wall of text. I started off thinking I was just going to write a few sentences and here we are. This topic is a bit more complicated than an outside observer would be able to pick up on without perhaps doing a bit more research. One common misconception people from other countries seem to have is that all the change is being made at the federal level. In fact, quite a lot of legislation is pr…
> I think it is equally ignorant to be universally against gun control measures Someone "universally against gun control measures" here. I'd be interested in knowing how I'm as ignorant as people who want to regulate things based on scary buzzwords, vaguely describing items that they generally lack any knowledge of. I'd assert it's possible to hold this position, yet also be quite well informed about the history, mec…
Sort of interesting, but the whole setup is oddly misleading: "Smoking and firearms are among the leading causes of avoidable premature death in the United States" The statement is true for smoking but it takes some work to make it true for firearms. And then it describes tobacco and firearms as "both are legal yet lethal" - it borders on nonsensical to pair them that way (I guess possessing both can be legal, but it…
There's another quality that allows to group cigarettes and guns together. They are both completely optional lifestyle choice. While cars and diet might be way harder to opt out given how cars are needed to get to work and stores and the most unhealthy diet is the cheapest and fastest one.