Essay talk:Needed Constitutional Amendments (Human)

Feel free to comment under the corresponding headers. human  16:20, 27 December 2007 (EST)

Second amendment
Would your version of the 2nd amendment punish someone who's gun was stolen and then used to commit a crime? It currently reads like that. Researcher 20:48, 26 December 2007 (EST)
 * Yes. But not equally to the actual criminal's. human  20:53, 26 December 2007 (EST)
 * That seems...horribly unjust. A decent law-abiding person might take every precaution, and still have a gun stolen from them.  It would seem, then, that gun owners would instead have more incentive to buy unregistered guns, even if they were law-abiding, to avoid the consequences if someone else took it from them.  Researcher 20:55, 26 December 2007 (EST)
 * Hmmm, interesting logic. So a "decent law abiding person" would rather buy an illegal gun than risk a legal one being stolen?  Anyway, the aim (and this part should be "law", not "consitution", really.) is to make private weapon very safeguarded from theft or such misuse.  I think most weapons have parts that can be removed and stored elsewhere, utterly disabling them?  And making, selling, owning or using an unregistered gun should be a capital crime! OK, that was over the op.


 * As far as the "real" issue (gun control) in the States, I actually think it's not even worth fighting for, at a broad level. Two many damn guns here already.  I did like Buddy Cianci's "gun court" in Providence, though.  But these are my fantasy amendments! human  21:52, 26 December 2007 (EST)
 * PS, you know what an "attractive nuisance" is, right? human  21:53, 26 December 2007 (EST)
 * Actually, no. Please, enlighten me? Researcher 21:57, 26 December 2007 (EST)
 * Looked it up, not sure how it applies though. Yes, a child might find a gun an "attractive nuisance," but how would that apply to someone stealing the gun and using it? Researcher 22:26, 26 December 2007 (EST)
 * What I was trying to say is that since even the most law-abiding person could end up getting caught up and punished for this, the typical person would thus see more incentive to break the law rather than follow it. (As for disassembling and storing elsewhere, the only part that can really be stored elsewhere is the bullets.  However, with the newest thumb locks, that could be a moot point.  I want to see the thumb locks become mandatory.) Researcher 21:55, 26 December 2007 (EST)
 * I think firing pins can often be separated. And as you say, of course, ammo should always be stored separately.  As far as the attractive nuisance laws, (think swimming pool fences, the most common), it is incumbent on a property owner to insure the safety.  Anyway, I was just getting carried away a bit - what I wrote shouldn't be in a constitution but simply law (if written at all), where things can get into detail.  For instance, if the owner could prove they did whatever the law expected to secure their weapon (say, a broken into very secure gun cabinet, criminal then got their own fiing pin or picked the trigger lock, bought their own ammo...), they would be meeting expectations and not be culpable.  Like, once the kids have climbed your eight foot high fence with their own ladder, what they do isn't your fault any more. human  13:20, 27 December 2007 (EST)

Oh, and one problem we have in the US that makes some just throw up their hands and say "why bother" is the wide variety of gun laws (or lack of them) between states, with of course no "border controls". People can go to, say, Virginia and pretty much stock up, then go to New York or MA. and sell them into the black market. Since the states aren't separate little countries and gun control at the federal level is anathema (even though this would be "interstate trade"), there is nothing that can be done about this problem, given current political circumstances. human  13:23, 27 December 2007 (EST)
 * Seems like we're mostly in agreement then. I would really like the new thumb-print locks made mandatory, but I don't see it happening anytime soon. Researcher 15:36, 27 December 2007 (EST)
 * Probably, yes. It's a shame, really, that trying to reduce gun crime gets twisted in propaganda, and is made to worry all those millions of totally legal, responsible gun owners.  What gripes me also are things like the guy in Maine years ago who shot an old woman in her backyard.  He thought her mittens were a deer's tail, or somesuch.  Result of trial by his cousins and uncles?  Not guilty.  And he is still allowed to weild a firearm in the woods.  I'd think, "Hey, ok, you made a mistake, you must be heartbroken, no jail time or fine.  Oh, and since you obviously have an eyesight problem, no guns off a closed target range any more for you."  Man... human  16:19, 27 December 2007 (EST)

Scope
Not quite sure where to put this thought so I'll put it here. These essays are written from the point of view of the US, but there is no logical reason why they should be. Should these be proposed constitutions for the whole world, or any nation therein?--Bobbing up 16:25, 27 December 2007 (EST)
 * Sure, they could be. The US-centric nature of them so far, of course, takes for granted the rest of the Const., the amendments to date, and perceptions of issues in the US.  But why not write one from scratch? human  16:51, 27 December 2007 (EST)
 * Sort of what I was thinking. But I'm not sure I'm up to it.  The proposed EU "constitution" was some 300 pages! But that wasn't really a "constitution".  How big is the US one?
 * A few pages, I believe, not counting amendments (check WP). And depending on page and "font" size, of course.  The other day I heard about the world's longest (and oldest?) constitution (and most amended).  I think it runs to 100s of 1,000s of pages.  The "art" is, of course, to try to be concise succinct. human  17:46, 27 December 2007 (EST)
 * During the whole EU constitution debate, one of the negotiators (I don't remember who, but I believe from Britain) gave a short speech in which he mentioned that he could keep the US consitution in one pocket and the UN charter in the other. The point being that brevity worked better than something longwinded.  (In particular, there are many groups in the US that print up "pocket constitutions", tiny little books that one could fit in any small pocket.) Researcher 17:59, 27 December 2007 (EST)