Skip to main content

View Diary: Should we amend the US Constitution? Justice Stevens thinks so, incl. 2nd Amendment (new book) (321 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'd like a new Constitution that, among other (8+ / 0-)

    important changes, simply does not mention firearms. The issue could then evolve from there, with none of the details exempt from being addressed.

    Even with some new left majority, it would surprise me greatly to see Heller reversed. Not impossible, but unlikely.

    There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

    by oldpotsmuggler on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 06:53:37 AM PST

    •  I'd like that, too. (6+ / 0-)

      There's still be the usual protections of property rights, like for cars, toasters, swimming pools (!), ladders (!!), bicycles (!!!), etc. :-)

      With a 6-3 liberal SCOTUS majority, which is possible if Democrats keep the White House and Senate, I think a fundamental re-interpretation is definitely possible, but I agree it's far from a certainty. Especially so, if current events continue to shock the collective conscience. But my guess is it will take more time.

      •  Guns are property too (6+ / 0-)

        And should enjoy the same protection as cars, toasters, swimming pools, ladders, bicycles, and, especially, real estate.  The fifth amendment allows the federal government, and the 14th amendment allows state government, to take your property, provided it is for a public purpose, awarding the former property owner just compensation.  Privately owned guns, not being used in the military, National Guard, or police, should enjoy no additional protection.  This does not mean that the government should be seizing privately owned hunting rifles unless the specific rifle has been used in a crime, but if we could elect people to office with some basic common sense, this will never be an issue.

        "Corporations exist not for themselves, but for the people." Ida Tarbell 1908.

        by Navy Vet Terp on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 08:01:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  That's an interesting take. (10+ / 0-)

      I think I'd prefer a Constitutional right not to be shot, blown up, or otherwise seriously and permanently damaged with items designed to damage people.  Let case law pop a million dollar minimum fine on all such violations going from the perpetrator to the victim, and a minimum of 5 years in jail for any incident in which anyone shot anyone else, and 10 years minimum for each person shot or blown up.

      (Now obviously you'd have to tweak the language on this, I'm sure there are loopholes in the tiny bit of text I just wrote.)

      •  OK Mr bloody axe, we might (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sharon Wraight

        need an amendment just for your type.   :-)

        A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

        by onionjim on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 08:25:54 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I would like to see the guns removed for sloppy (7+ / 0-)

        ownership. No jail time. The problem isn't the people it is the tolerance of people being sloppy with their guns.

        Of course when the result is damage then it is too late for my idea.

        But nipping their lack of respect for deadly weapons would get most of it before we read about what they did in the paper. Remember the Naval Yard Shooter was NOT arrested for shooting his gun while cleaning it. And the paperwork was lost when he shot his tires in a separate incident.

        Now they have the 2nd (safety net for sloppy) Amendment, and can't be infringed to actually treat their gun like a gun and not a video game controller.

        by 88kathy on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 08:29:39 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  good slogan, but constitutional rights generally (0+ / 0-)

        don't protect you from private behavior, just from the government.

        ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

        by James Allen on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:06:23 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'm pretty sure you do have the right not to be (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        high uintas, sviscusi

        any of those things you listed.

        Whether or not you have the right not to be worried about those things is a different matter.

        While you dream of Utopia, we're here on Earth, getting things done.

        by GoGoGoEverton on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 12:02:53 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Firearmes are not in the constitution (3+ / 0-)

      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.

    •  not mentioning firearms would be a terrible idea (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The Constitution doesn't mention privacy and you've seen what they've been able to do with that.  Sure, the government can't search or seize without a piece of paper that they give themselves saying they can, but those pieces of paper aren't exactly hard to get, and they even have 72 hours to get a piece of paper after they've already searched and seized.

      Laws are written with long-winded and hair-splitting language for a very good reason: i.e. to leave no ambiguity.  People being what we are, I think a constitution should be written the same way.

      Domestic politics is the continuation of civil war by other means.

      by Visceral on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 01:45:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site