Character
Rules
Events
Map
RP Points
Proplimits
Statistics
Steam Group
Members
Hall of Fame
Team
Bans
Blacklists
Warnings
Changelog
Content
05-28-2020, 12:48 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-01-2022, 01:08 AM by Fearless Community.
Edit Reason: Fixed Encoding
)
The underlying problem with the USA is the fact that the Constitution is entrenched - it's a much more difficult process to pass any form of 'radical' law, for example in relation to gun control due to the second amendment. A supermajority (66%) of states are required to support an amendment to the constitution in order for it to be ratified, and due to the gun-crazy conservative nature that many of the states, as well as (too) many Americans display, this super-majority will never be achieved.
States that want to pass gun control laws can't; look at District of Columbia v Heller (2008), a Supreme Court case that ruled that requiring guns to be bound by a trigger lock, or disassembled completely, was unconstitutional as it infringed the 'right to bear arms'. Whilst the idea of entrenchment is great in many cases, take for example the 14th and 15th amendment guaranteeing equal rights to all ethnicities, the 2nd amendment is a clear example of how this can go wrong.
The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791 (the first 10 amendments, what many refer to as 'the constitution') when completely manual firearms were commonplace. The vague nature of the Constitution generally allows for interpretation by the courts, however, in this case, the 'right to bear arms' is not a flexible law, it's a naïve wording opening up the broad possibility of exploitation.
I don't think anyone is likely to commit to the necessary judicial activism in the Supreme Court, nor are 66% of the states going to agree to amend the constitution once again - if more mass shootings than days in a year isn't a good enough reason to suggest that your gun laws are absolutely bewildering and idiotic, I don't know what is.
States that want to pass gun control laws can't; look at District of Columbia v Heller (2008), a Supreme Court case that ruled that requiring guns to be bound by a trigger lock, or disassembled completely, was unconstitutional as it infringed the 'right to bear arms'. Whilst the idea of entrenchment is great in many cases, take for example the 14th and 15th amendment guaranteeing equal rights to all ethnicities, the 2nd amendment is a clear example of how this can go wrong.
The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791 (the first 10 amendments, what many refer to as 'the constitution') when completely manual firearms were commonplace. The vague nature of the Constitution generally allows for interpretation by the courts, however, in this case, the 'right to bear arms' is not a flexible law, it's a naïve wording opening up the broad possibility of exploitation.
I don't think anyone is likely to commit to the necessary judicial activism in the Supreme Court, nor are 66% of the states going to agree to amend the constitution once again - if more mass shootings than days in a year isn't a good enough reason to suggest that your gun laws are absolutely bewildering and idiotic, I don't know what is.