US Constitution according to Rosa Brooks

[American2020]

http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/09/18/blood-on-the-constitution/

Discuss

[dead0man]

anybody that calls a 19 years old shot down in a gun fight over drugs as a "kid" is full of sh**t.  Doubly so if they are using such bull sh**t to sell something.

[#gravelgang #lessiglad]

Several observations, none of which relate to the content:

This is four years old.
FP should be ashamed that it published this.
Brooks, a law prof at Gtown, should be ashamed that she wrote in such a way.

If preventable deaths by firearm are as important as she claims, she does an immense disservice to the cause by writing in such an un-serious and cavalier tone. "Bless your shrunken NRA heart" is the kind of muck that's written by some two-bit nobody at Salon.

As for what little content there is within this "piece," it's probably accurate to say that a lot in the Constitution needs clarification, but the level of polarization makes doing so impossible.

[MarkD]

Several observations, none of which relate to the content:

This is four years old.
FP should be ashamed that it published this.
Brooks, a law prof at Gtown, should be ashamed that she wrote in such a way.

If preventable deaths by firearm are as important as she claims, she does an immense disservice to the cause by writing in such an un-serious and cavalier tone. "Bless your shrunken NRA heart" is the kind of muck that's written by some two-bit nobody at Salon.

As for what little content there is within this "piece," it's probably accurate to say that a lot in the Constitution needs clarification, but the level of polarization makes doing so impossible.

I hope that is not true that it's "impossible." I drafted my proposal (see signature) to try to make it a compromise between conservative and liberal points of view, and I hope a lot of people on both sides can see that compromise is not a dirty word.

[#gravelgang #lessiglad]

Several observations, none of which relate to the content:

This is four years old.
FP should be ashamed that it published this.
Brooks, a law prof at Gtown, should be ashamed that she wrote in such a way.

If preventable deaths by firearm are as important as she claims, she does an immense disservice to the cause by writing in such an un-serious and cavalier tone. "Bless your shrunken NRA heart" is the kind of muck that's written by some two-bit nobody at Salon.

As for what little content there is within this "piece," it's probably accurate to say that a lot in the Constitution needs clarification, but the level of polarization makes doing so impossible.

I hope that is not true that it's "impossible." I drafted my proposal (see signature) to try to make it a compromise between conservative and liberal points of view, and I hope a lot of people on both sides can see that compromise is not a dirty word.

I suspect I'm a pessimist by nature. I really do believe that any attempt at compromising on something as high stakes as a constitutional amendment is not possible for at least the next decade and a half, if not more.

[Young Conservative]

No. (Sane)

[NapoleoncorinII]

No, You should not be able to touch the sale of guns.