Wednesday, June 15, 2016
Bad Constitutional Law Professors
Much more profoundly, the Framers and the Constitution were wildly wrong on race. They enshrined slavery into the Constitution in multiple ways, including taking the extreme step of prohibiting the Constitution from being amended to stop the slave trade in the country's first 20 years. They also blatantly wrote racism into the Constitution by counting slaves as only 3/5 of a person for purposes of Congressional representation. It took a bloody civil war to fix these constitutional flaws (and then another 150 years, and counting, to try to fix the societal consequences of them).
When the Constitution was written, slavery existed throughout the World as it had since humans came into existence. Some of the northern states of our new nation banned slavery. The wealthy Democrat slave owners in the southern states thought they needed it for survival of their economy. The stuff about slavery in the Constitution was a compromise to get it passed. The 3/5 of a person compromise for counting slaves as part of the population, as any competent professor knows, was not racism on the part of the northern states' representatives writing the Constitution, but their non-racist desire to rid the whole country of slavery by not allowing a growing slave population to swell the representation of the slave states in the House and prevent (ultimately) the 13th Amendment. The struggle to make the 13th to 15th Amendments have real effect in society was a struggle against the racist Democrats who thought of the former slaves as Democrats think of black Americans now. Enshrine is not the right word for what the Constitution did with slavery. Seeded its doom is a more applicable phrase. What a wanker.
In the face of yet another mass shooting, now is the time to acknowledge a profound but obvious truth – the Second Amendment is wrong for this country and needs to be jettisoned. We can do that through a Constitutional amendment. It's been done before (when the Twenty-First Amendment repealed prohibition in the Eighteenth), and it must be done now.
And why, O sage, must it be jettisoned right freakin' now?
The Second Amendment needs to be repealed because it is outdated, a threat to liberty and a suicide pact.
And how is it a threat to liberty and a suicide pact?
When the Second Amendment was written, the Founders didn't have to weigh the risks of one man killing 49 and injuring 53 all by himself. Now we do, and the risk-benefit analysis of 1791 is flatly irrelevant to the risk-benefit analysis of today.
Oh, so because weapons have evolved since the Constitution is written, it has to go. But everything has modernized and things the drafters never contemplated have come into existence. So what? The Amendments enshrining our inalienable rights and prohibiting what the Government can do to us are not risk-benefit analyses but a recognition that we have God given rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness through property. I know that's from the Declaration but naming eternal freedoms was not risk-benefit analysis. It was principles. I wouldn't expect the Professor to recognize founding principles. We have a right to carry weapons because we have a right to protect our life from anyone trying to take it. It's really not that hard to grasp. You have to be really educated not to be able to see this.
But liberty is not a one way street. It also includes the liberty to enjoy a night out with friends, loving who you want to love, dancing how you want to dance, in a club that has historically provided a refuge from the hate and fear that surrounds you. It also includes the liberty to go to and send your kids to kindergarten and first grade so that they can begin to be infused with a love of learning. It includes the liberty to go to a movie, to your religious house of worship, to college, to work, to an abortion clinic, go to a hair salon, to a community center, to the supermarket, to go anywhere and feel that you are free to do to so without having to weigh the risk of being gunned down by someone wielding a weapon that can easily kill you and countless others.
What? If I carry a gun, I am not impeding anyone else's freedom. If I pull it and aim it someone else in order to murder them, then I'm impeding. And the person I aim at has the right to pull his or her own gun and shoot me first. It's OK to impede someone else's actions trying to murder you. That's a big part of the Second Amendment's reason of existence. So how is disarming the population going to make these places, these gun free zones, actually safe? I presume the Professor assumes that banning guns will get them out of the hands of the people who want to use them to murder others. Sorry, man, gun bans only disarm the law abiding. It never has and it never will disarm the criminal, because, and I know this will come as a shock to you, Professor, because criminals, by definition, don't obey laws banning guns. Any other proof, Prof?
Finally, if we take the gun-rights lobby at their word, the Second Amendment is a suicide pact. As they say over and over, the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
Who does the Professor think stopped the murder spree of the miserable Islamic puke shooting for hours over a hundred people in the Pulse? He goes into a tired old Democrat talking point which has been completely debunked, namely, if we allow righteous citizens to carry guns for self defense, it will be a blood bath.
Just think of what would have happened in the Orlando night-club Saturday night if there had been many others armed. In a crowded, dark, loud dance club, after the shooter began firing, imagine if others took out their guns and started firing back. Yes, maybe they would have killed the shooter, but how would anyone else have known what exactly was going on? How would it not have devolved into mass confusion and fear followed by a large-scale shootout without anyone knowing who was the good guy with a gun, who was the bad guy with a gun, and who was just caught in the middle? The death toll could have been much higher if more people were armed.
Or, like in most actual good defensive use of guns against those intent on mass murder, only the killer is shot and he stops killing people because he's dead. I have about 40 examples of this. Does the Professor have any examples of the "worse" scenario of defensive use of guns? He doesn't give us anything but speculation. As he should know, that's not evidence.
The gun-rights lobby's mantra that more people need guns will lead to an obvious result — more people will be killed. We'd be walking down a road in which blood baths are a common occurrence, all because the Second Amendment allows them to be.
Told you he'd go there. Except he's 100% wrong. The murder rate in America, where murderers generally use handguns only, has dropped since 1993 by nearly half. What accounts for that? Two thing having a big impact are lengthy sentences for criminals and vastly easier to obtain concealed carry permits. It has been the opposite of what he ignorantly predicts. Far fewer people have been killed even though gun ownership during that time has nearly doubled. More guns, less murders; because there are more righteous citizens armed than there are armed murderers. Pretty simple to grasp, except for the learned Left. Yes, the Professor is a lefty. I looked it up.
So the solution to a bad man using a gun to kill people is to take away the guns from all the good people who would never use one to murder. Sounds like a good plan to me. Wanker.