. . . was evidently not well-regulated. The justices of the Supreme Court evidently cannot read.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Discussion of public health and health care policy, from a public health perspective. The U.S. spends more on medical services than any other country, but we get less for it. Major reasons include lack of universal access, unequal treatment, and underinvestment in public health and social welfare. We will critically examine the economics, politics and sociology of health and illness in the U.S. and the world.
9 comments:
Oh, they can read. The problem is in their thinking, which is twisted.
Don't forget that the "Original Intent" was about muzzle loaders.
If you don't want gun rights in the constitution, then amend it. If you think that's not possible, then you're on the losing end of public sentiment. Constitution has been amended and ratified 27 times already.
Right you are, Chucky. So-called "conservatives" use twisted, tortured illogic to get the results they want -- like claiming (thanks, Clarence "Long Dong Silver" Thomas) that a recount of Florida's votes in 2000 would have somehow been "unfair" to George W. "Sex addict/party animal" Bush.
They bastardize and corrupt the law to gain minority control and implement racist, sexist, anti-life and bellicose policies.
I publish Minister of Truth (odd choice of a nym, BTW, since the whole point was that the Ministry of Truth produced nothing but lies) because it is such a glaring example of missing the point. I am not saying that the constitution should be amended, I am saying that people should actually read it and understand what it says. The Second Amendment guaranteed the state militias, on the argument that the federal government would not have a standing army. The state militia is now the National Guard. Nobody ever read the Second Amendment as guaranteeing an individual right to possessor carry weapons until the late 20th Century. That's not what it says and that's not what it's about.
You wanna fix it or you wanna just bitch about those whose opinions actually count disagree with you?
I offered up a solution. You haven't
Sadly, that's not a realistic suggestion. Amending the constitution requires the concordance of the legislatures of 3/4 of the states. That means that just 13 states can block it. Not going to happen. Appointing justices to the Supreme Court who aren't extremist ideologues is a better chance.
It's supposed to be tough to insure a supermajority is on board and to prevent a minority from making radical changes.
The problem is not the amendment process, the built-in mechanism for change. The problem is there is not even a majority of voters that are on board. If there were anywhere close, this would be a hot political issue. It's not
Well that's where you are just factually wrong. There are large majorities in the U.S. in favor of strong firearm regulation, including a ban on semi-automatic rifles. The problem is that it is very geographically uneven. There are a few states where this is not the case. he share of voters who support stricter gun control laws has reached a new high, with more than two-thirds of Americans backing them, a new Morning Consult/Politico poll finds.
Post a Comment