How would you make the U.S. Constitution perfect?

[Sunburn74]

So you like being a victim? You must be a Democrat...

What amazing high school level logic. You know what they say about arguing with an idiot.

All I will say is this. The question is simple: what is the best way to prevent crime? You suggest arming the populace based on laws or so called rights (I'm not sure how owning certain possessions is ever a God given right but whatever) written by individuals living in a different time and different world than the world today and for an entirely different purpose. Perhaps you are right.

However, I believe people respond to incentives. I'd rather not see crime prevention be a matter of how big a gun the criminal thinks I am packing in relation to what he is packing. Its fairly obvious what that will lead to: criminals packing larger guns and more frequently using human shields or known hostages in remote locations. Rather than preventing violent crime at the last checkpoint (the moment of crime), why not focus on the million other steps leading up (the approach of successful countries).

 

[BoberFett]

Is there an escalating arms race between arsons and fire extinguisher manufacturers? This whole issue of packing bigger guns is stupid. A small gun will kill just as well as a large one, and is far more concealable, the arms race argument that gun grabbers stick to is as ridiculous as their wild west shootout argument.

The simple fact is that regardless of the incentives (which is completely nebulous by the way, what exactly are you proposing?) there are people who intend to do others harm. You have been the victims of one of those people yet you still insist that people shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves. You don't being a victim. Other people prefer to defend their loved ones.

 

[Sunburn74]

Is there an escalating arms race between arsons and fire extinguisher manufacturers? This whole issue of packing bigger guns is stupid. A small gun will kill just as well as a large one, and is far more concealable, the arms race argument that gun grabbers stick to is as ridiculous as their wild west shootout argument.

The simple fact is that regardless of the incentives (which is completely nebulous by the way, what exactly are you proposing?) there are people who intend to do others harm. You have been the victims of one of those people yet you still insist that people shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves. You don't being a victim. Other people prefer to defend their loved ones.

Arsonists do not directly fight against fire extinguisher manufacturers. This is more akin to terrorists and security at the airport. The increasing security at airports is an incentive which will garner one of 2 responses: either terrorists will find increasingly clever ways to bypass them or will perform their terrorism elsewhere (ie the streets, the malls, etc). However if your goal is to reduce the amount of terrorism, simply making it harder for them to do it brazenly doesn't necessarily reduce the amount. I'm not saying, give terrorists a free pass, but rather you may want to focus not on the last step, but rather the million other steps that precede it.

I realize certainly a small gun will kill as easily as a large one if the bullet is well placed but that is a huge if.You may disagree, but its pretty hard to use a handgun in actual combat situations. I mean its one thing to be at the firing range putting headshots into the paper target, and another to be shooting at moving people. Even more so, its been well known that even trained police officers at point blank range will often completely miss the target after unloading entire clips when the bullets start flying from both directions. And you want to arm the general public?

After the first few weeks of criminals being shot dead in the streets in the middle of violent crime, they will surely change their tactics. I can easily see them using automatic larger guns to gain an advantage over the handguns the 3 or 4 people in the store will be packing, and I can see them using more frank hostage situations. Lets go back to the store robbery situation. You and 3 other people are in the store all packing a nice handgun of your choice. 2 guys burst in with ak47s and scream everyone get on the floor and keep your hands visible. In that first 3 secs after seeing the ak47, you have a decision to make. You can't shoot them both of course. You can maybe shoot one and hopefully kill him (but will probably just wound him), but then the other guy will kill everyone in the room with his ak. However that 3 seconds passes and you do nothing. They then say they kidnapped 35 year old mother of 3 kids 10 minutes ago and she is tied up in a car with their 3rd crime partner. If the two of them don't walk out of the store cleanly in 10 mins and with cash, she will be shot automatically. If they get the cash, she will live and will be released in a discrete location. They may be lying. They may be telling the truth. Regardless, what good are your guns?

Again, people respond to incentives. Arming a populace will simply force criminals to respond in ways you cannot necessarily predict...

 

[BoberFett]

The facts simply don't back up your assertions. You live in a Hollywood world, not reality.

 

[Sunburn74]

Again, people respond to incentives. In goverment, when taxes are raised or tax cuts are made possible, people always find the maximal way to exploit the situation; they always find the loop holes. In sports, the same is true with every rule change. And so on and so on. Why wouldn't criminals do the same? Like I said after the first few weeks of criminals being shot dead in the streets, something will change either for the better or for the worse.

 

[BoberFett]

Again, people respond to incentives. In goverment, when taxes and tax cuts are made, people always find the maximal way to exploit the situation. Why wouldn't criminals do the same?

Then why aren't they doing that now? Why knock over convenience stores for $50 if all you need to do is get a bigger gun and you can get bigger rewards? Surely some budding Dr. Evil could hold the entire country ransom for... one million dollars.

Reality doesn't match up with your imagination.

 

[Sunburn74]

It has nothing to do with reward size. Its simply a question of how will criminals respond to the expectation that the populace will be significantly armed. They will respond most likely with mechanisms that reduce the utility of carrying a gun and there are many many such ways (hostages come to mind immediately).

 

[BoberFett]

What kind of bizarre fantasy land do you live in?

 

[Sunburn74]

The fantasy land that people (criminals included) adapt to changing conditions.

 

[QuantumPion]

-eliminate the 2nd amendment. I would still allow people to have guns in their homes and to go hunting with, but I really don't like concealed carry types who fantacize about scenarios where they can kill another person. Without a 2nd amendment, we would still have guns in this country.

- Supreme Court Justices serve 17 year terms

- Reduce the number of representatives in the House and Senate to roughly half.

- possibly just make it a parliamentary democracy. this would allow 3rd parties to flourish.

Hah. At least you are honest in admitting that the 2nd amendment does gaurantee the individual right to keep and bear arms. Unlike most other liberals that try to argue the 2nd amendment gives the states the right to have a national guard.

 

[QuantumPion]

I would say edit the constitution to remove non-explicit statements like the commerce clause which permit the government to arguing essentially "your existence affects interstate commerce. Therefore we have the authority to regulate every aspect of your life in every conceivable way". Maybe update the ye olde language to modern vernacular for clarity. Better yet, incorporate the federalist papers into the constitution as an official reference.

 

[xj0hnx]

Hah. At least you are honest in admitting that the 2nd amendment does gaurantee the individual right to keep and bear arms. Unlike most other liberals that try to argue the 2nd amendment gives the states the right to have a national guard.

That is most assuredly a slip up on his part simply because it fits the narrative at the moment.

 

[piasabird]

How about a no-confidence vote for all Federal Officials like President, congress, and Supreme Court Justices and Federal Department heads like EPA, Education, FCC, etc.

Maybe once every year or two.

Make all of congress and presidents have 4 year terms and make them all come up for reelection at the same time.

 

[piasabird]

If you commit a crime with a loaded gun, you get a mandatory Death sentence.

 

[piasabird]

Same thing goes for stealing an automobile. Mandatory Death Sentence.

 

[piasabird]

If you bail out of an automobile and start running from the police, they have the right to just shoot you.

 

[Lithium381]

How about a no-confidence vote for all Federal Officials like President, congress, and Supreme Court Justices and Federal Department heads like EPA, Education, FCC, etc.

Maybe once every year or two.

Make all of congress and presidents have 4 year terms and make them all come up for reelection at the same time.

rotating election cycles are better. . . as we have it but term limits on congress would be a good start


and fsck the fed using the commerce clause the way they do

 

[Lithium381]

Same thing goes for stealing an automobile. Mandatory Death Sentence.

how about any repeat felon ?

 

[QuantumPion]

What does this have to do with the constitution? The constitution has nothing to do with individual laws and punishments except for the prohibition on cruel and unusual. Which I think that would be.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Make lobbying illegal, akin to bribery, and a felony.

 

[SCOR]

How would you make the U.S. Constitution perfect?

That might not be possible. But we could try to make it more perfect.

 

[Sunburn74]

Make lobbying illegal, akin to bribery, and a felony.

Personally some of the issue I find with lobbying is just the cash politicians receive in the form of campaign contributions, but also the extremely cush jobs they land after their time in office in the industries they are supposed to be regulating.

Like I said, I think the biggest issues unaddressed in the constitution are:

1) the conflict of interest politicians have in that they want to be re elected rather than want to do the best thing for the people
2) the fact that you need money and support not necessarily from the people to reach office (politicians are essentially bought before they even get in the door, a process that undermines democracy)
3) the fact that once you leave office you can enter industry that you allegedly regulated
4) the fact that corruption is treated so lightly in government

 

[rayfieldclement]

A Philadelphia radio talk show host says that a book called Cracks in the Constitution exists maybe you should read it

 

[Incorruptible]

The Constitution needs to be enforced because it has been a very long time since any government has been restricted by it. When the founders created the constitution they knew about the threat of tyranny and government so they designed it to heavily limit what the government can do in order to ensure people are as free as possible.

 

[Craig234]

Not looking at this issue much, a few improvements:

- Strengthen the legal protections for 'freedom of religion' by saying no religion can be given preferential or unequal protections under the law compared to other religions.

Of course, a tricky phrasing is prohibiting unjust discrimination by the government, while allowing for reasonable restrictions on behavior. What if someone says their religion allows them to rape women they're attracted to? Do employers have to always be forced to respect 'not working on the Sabbath'? What if someone claims their religion gives them 3 months a year of vacation?

The government should be able to restrict reasonable behaviors, while not having laws for or against behaviors based on preferential or discriminatory treatment.

- Clarify the intent of the second amendment. An awkward sentence with different clauses is not helpful.

- Clarify the intent of the Commerce Clause. It's a very powerful power in practice, not matching the language in the constitution being so unclear.

- Require public financing of campaigns, limiting the use of money to dominate elections

- Specify the people protected by constitutional rights are natural people, not corporations

Those are the less political quick few - but I'd also like FDR's second bill of rights added.