So, I have no idea why Rolling Stone (a magazine that used to be about music) is getting into politics. Probably because there is not hobby or interest out there which has not been invaded by Progressives intent on destroying all that is not them. Not unlike the Borg. But where the Borg at least will take the good before destroying the bad, Progressives do nothing but destroy everything.
Still, they seemed to have gotten a “Constitutional Law Professor” to write this article for them. So let’s see if a guy with a BA in History can out do a full on Professor.
Frankly, I like my chances at this point.
And as always, I like to see who it is that is writing for us today, and it is: David S. Cohen
I teach the Constitution for a living. I revere the document when it is used to further social justice and make our country a more inclusive one. I admire the Founders for establishing a representative democracy that has survived for over two centuries.
“Goys, listen! I love the Constitution, one of the most amazing documents created in all of human history! But I only love it when it serves to further my ideology of Social Justice! Now, listen to me while I tell you it should be chopped up because of something I don’t like!”
But sometimes we just have to acknowledge that the Founders and the Constitution are wrong. This is one of those times. We need to say loud and clear: The Second Amendment must be repealed.
Seriously, get out. I am tired of this shit. “Oh, I love this country, I love how it was designed, but you know what, I think we need to just start changing all these things I don’t like and don’t agree with!”
I see it all the damn time. Hel, I’m not the only one to point it out. Take Muslim Immigration for example. They hate their homelands, go to somewhere like Europe because it’s better, and then proceed to try and make their new home exactly like their old home. Which they hated.
Cohen, if you do not like the 2nd Amendment, that’s fine. If you do not want to live in a place that has the 2nd amendment, that is fine. There are a shit ton of countries that do not have the 2nd Amendment.
Go to one of them.
As much as we have a culture of reverence for the founding generation, it’s important to understand that they got it wrong — and got it wrong often. Unfortunately, in many instances, they enshrined those faults in the Constitution. For instance, most people don’t know it now, but under the original document, Mitt Romney would be serving as President Obama’s vice president right now because he was the runner-up in the last presidential election. That part of the Constitution was fixed by the Twelfth Amendment, which set up the system we currently have of the president and vice president running for office together.
And honestly…fixing that was a god damn mistake.
Okay, so the reasoning behind the whole “Vice-President” is the 2nd place guy actually was pretty smart. See, the Government was originally designed with checks and balances. One of these was that the 2nd place for President would be the Vice President.
Why? Because then the “minority” voice was still heard. Instead of letting the president run around doing his best to become king while the VP just sat around watching TV in case something happened, the VP was an active voice to represent those who hadn’t voted for the current president.
Imagine what the previous term would have been like if, instead of Obama and co running around like an Imperial, Mitt had been there day in and day out saying: “Hey, you can’t just ignore these people and their wishes/rights simply because you think they’re a bunch of degenerates and uneducated lice!” Frankly, I suspect it would have been an improvement.
On the flip side, it was also a warning. If the president completely abuses the side that loses, one of them could just assassinate him and get their guy into the office. Which would be a powerful motivator the President to represent ALL THE PEOPLE and not just those who gave him power.
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).
Yeah, except they weren’t “wrong on race.”
Many of them believed slavery needed to be ended. Hell, Thomas Jefferson wanted to end slavery, and had every intention of freeing all his slaves when he wrote the Constitution. However, that did not happen because the Carolinas, whose entire economy ran on slave powered agriculture, refused to join in the revolution if their states were going to be turned into 3rd world hell holes of economic devastation.
The best way I can think of to explain it is like this. Let’s say China invaded the US and ruled it for hundreds of years. The idea comes about to cast off the Chinese and make America for Americans. Everyone is mostly on board, but New York and California insist that in addition to casting off the yoke of Chinese domination, everyone also has to give up their combustion engines, because “Global Warming is a crisis.” They, of course, will not be affected in the least because they’ve already disposed of their engines and have alternatives.
Now, giving up their cars means that everyone in the South East and the MidWest cannot work, they cannot get food, they would literally lose everything, because the distances required require cars, and the only way to farm efficiently is with tractors and other equipment. Reasonably, because times are already hard and what good is winning a war if you literally lose everything, these states refuse to give up their engines.
Now, you’ve got a problem. You can insist on your moral views being made into law, which means you get to live enslaved to a foreign power because there will be no revolution. Or you can compromise, allow those people to keep their lives and economy with the hope that maybe later a solution can be found, and you get your Revolution and power is returned to the people.
Secondly…slaves are not citizens. So why should slaves (of any race) be allowed to have equal say to a citizen? Not to mention, slaves can be abused into voting how their master wants them to, which means that if 1 citizen owns 50 slaves, he would technically have 51 votes compared to a citizen who owned no slaves. While we may balk at the morality of slaves and limiting their voting ability, it was done to prevent slavery from becoming even more powerful by handing more power over to slave owners!
There are others flaws that have been fixed (such as about voting and Presidential succession), and still other flaws that have not yet been fixed (such as about equal rights for women and land-based representation in the Senate), but the point is the same — there is absolutely nothing permanently sacrosanct about the Founders and the Constitution. They were deeply flawed people, it was and is a flawed document, and when we think about how to make our country a more perfect union, we must operate with those principles in mind.
Name me one right that men have that women do not.
Go on, I’ll wait.
Now, the biggest issue here is Cohen complaining about “land-based representation in the Senate.”
His problem, judging by the link, is that states that have smaller land masses are allowed an equal say in the Senate to states with more land. Meaning that Delaware and New York both have equal say in the senate, regardless of their size. Cohen insists this is “unfair” because more people live in New York because of its size than live in Delaware, which means a Delawarian has more power in the Senate than a New Yorker.
You know, for a Constitutional Professor, Cohen is kind of an idiot. Or at least ignorant. That, or he is maliciously misleading.
See, Cohen is ignoring the House of Representatives in this situation. See, in the House, representation is based on Population. Meaning that New York has more Reps than Delaware. This, arguably, does mean that the citizens of each state have equal representation in the house…but it also means that the States with the most population have significantly more power than those with smaller populations.
The Senate was designed to counter balance that. By giving each state an equal number of Senators, smaller states now stood on equal footing with larger states. This prevents larger states from steamrolling the smaller ones by out voting them. If we took the solution that Cohen puts forth, and give New York more Senators, as well as more Representatives, then New York can literally exterminate the political power of Delaware by out voting them in both House and Senate. And that was something the Founding Fathers worked to prevent by setting up the system we have now.
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.
What’s this? A Jew who does not like the Goyim having guns! I’m shocked! Shocked I tell you!
All /pol/ack jokes aside, though, Cohen is really showing himself to be ignorant of what he speaks. Like the Senate having equal numbers of senators being a check on the balance of the political power bigger states can bring to bear, the 2nd amendment was designed to be a check on the military and other armed power of the state.
Yes, mass violence is a tragedy, but as Europe has proven numerous times this last could of years, you don’t need a gun to kill lots of people. Hel, you can do it with knives, mobs, or trucks. Hel, if you wanted to you could do it with a little red wagon and a couple tins of gasoline.
What’s really funny to me though is that Cohen is a proponent of Social Justice and Progressivism. What’s the example that he uses? The 21st and 18th amendments. The 18th being the one that prohibited Alcohol being produced and distributed in the US.
You know, the amendment passed by Progressives. Progressives, who were attempting to legislate their morality via the Constitution. So his example of why we could get rid of the 2nd amendment is quit literally history’s greatest example of how badly Progressives can fuck up this country and the rest of the country fixing their mistake.
The Second Amendment needs to be repealed because it is outdated, a threat to liberty and a suicide pact. When the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, there were no weapons remotely like the AR-15 assault rifle and many of the advances of modern weaponry were long from being invented or popularized.
Yeah, the also never imagine type writers, much less the internet. So I suppose the 1st amendment doesn’t apply to them?
And since everyone’s claiming Healthcare should be a right, I suppose these are the appropriate tools that everyone has a right to:
Man, you better hope Cohen and his friends don’t get around to being Progressive enough to ban the booze, because that is all the painkiller you’re going to have access to. But don’t worry, you can keep your doctor. Sure, he’s a guy who spent three weeks in a field hospital sawing off legs with a rusty blade, but he’s got the latest Gray’s Anatomy from 1774, so it’s all good!
And, well, I mean, if we’re going with the state of things at the time as our reference point, Niggers weren’t even considered people, so I suppose we can just take away their right to vote and give up this whole “civil rights” nonsense? Don’t worry though, even as we speak wooden cargo ships are being built to repatriate them back to their Mother Africa! I mean, they may get lost as sea, but who cares, they’re niggers, right!
I hope I have impressed upon you the utter stupidity of Cohen’s logic here. After all, the only difference between an AR-15 and a Musket is that the AR fires faster and more accurately. As for the founding fathers “having no concept” of an AR’s ability to kill… I would like to point out that the Revolution was fought with Volley Fire.
For those of you who do not know what that is, it’s where you get a bunch of guys together in a bunch of rows, and each row fires in turn while the others reload.
Which is literally the same level of devastation that an AR can do. The only difference is one man instead of fifteen. And during the Revolution, we’re talking battles that numbered in the thousands, all volley firing. Our founding fathers knew well the power of mass fire.
Sure, the Founders knew that the world evolved and that technology changed, but the weapons of today that are easily accessible are vastly different than anything that existed in 1791. 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.
And proving once again that Cohen knows shit about what he’s talking about.
Guns are run off of Gunpowder. Gunpowder, used to come in barrels. What is a barrel of gunpowder?
Now, gunpowder/black powder was something you pick up at the local general store. It would be like me going to walmart, plopping down a ten, and walking out with a 5lb bomb. And you know what? It was used in the revolution and elsewhere. And that’s not counting other kinds of explosives. Mass murder was very possible back then, and guess what.
The founding Father’s didn’t ban it. They never banned people from having access to black powder.
Gun-rights advocates like to make this all about liberty, insisting that their freedom to bear arms is of utmost importance and that restricting their freedom would be a violation of basic rights.
Because it is.
It literally is the 2nd Amendment, the only right more important was free speech. And to restrict it, is a violation of their basic rights.
I mean, if I went into Cohen’s office and house, and confiscated his phones and computers, and said “These are not covered under the first amendment, you do not have a right to them,” how do you think he would react? Would he accept the “Founding Father’s couldn’t consider the idea that billions of people could read your words via this,” argument, or would he insist that those actions were a violation of his basic rights?
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.
Hmm, I wonder if that also includes the right to hear an invited speaker without a bunch of entitled twats trying to burn down a school and town?
First off, it’s debatable as to if safety is a right, much less a liberty. In fact, the 2nd amendment is there to allow people to arm themselves to see to their own safety. As much as I hate to be that guy, if any, or more, of the people in those situations had been armed, would the violence have gotten as bad?
One of the examples Cohen links to is the Pulse club shooting. In fact, many of the latest shootings are similar to the Pulse…in that they were done by Islamists. So, perhaps Cohen should argue for the banning of Islam? Seeing as the motive is perhaps more important than the opportunity in this case. After all, if guns were banned, Pulse still could have happened. It might have involved a truck and gasoline. Blaming the tool used does nothing to end the motivation for the tragedy.
The liberty of some to own guns cannot take precedence over the liberty of everyone to live their lives free from the risk of being easily murdered. It has for too long, and we must now say no more.
So from what I can tell online (because people are being dodgy with numbers) the number of people killed in mass shootings (not counting gang violence, because that’s more like war) numbers…maybe under 300 for say 2016, maybe even under 200. The population of the US is over 300 million. So you literally have less than a one in a million chance of being killed in a mass shooting. There are, potentially, 1.5 million assault rifles privately owned in the US.
The number of people who die in car accidents per day is approximately 115. Which means about 42,000 people die a year via cars. There are 260 million cars in the US.
So, in 2-3 days, more people die because of cars than do via mass shootings in an entire year, in America.
“The liberty of some to own cars cannot take precedence over the liberty of everyone to live their lives free from the risk of being easily killed.”
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. In other words, please the gun manufacturers by arming even the vast majority of Americans who do not own a gun.
Mutually Assured Destruction is a viable road to peace.
After all, Cohen…isn’t that how Israel stays alive? They have Nuclear weapons, and it’s an open secret that if they actually did get overrun by their Muslim neighbors, they would detonate those nukes and turn the entire region into a nuclear holocaust. I mean, sure, it won’t get to that because Israel has a habit of either blowing the shit out of their neighbors at the first hint of trouble, or getting the US to do it for them at this point.
Speaking of which, isn’t Israel the country that insists all their soldiers be armed even when off duty and in a civilian population, because of some non-sense that “armed people prevent violence?” I mean, it seems a bit odd that the Jewish homeland engages in such an obviously false practice. And aren’t even Jewish/Israeli civilians allowed the right to arms as well?
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.
Yes, and imagine if the Muslim shooter at the night club had not had access to a gun. Why, given the nature of Muslim terrorists, it’s entirely possible that he would have driven a truck into the building. Even more possible that he would have loaded up that truck with cans of gasoline with some sort of fuse, which he could then light after the truck had gotten inside and mowed a bunch of people down, detonating a home made bomb!
Imagine how many more people would have died!
Whining about possibilities doesn’t change anything. Creating sob stories of terror to push your agenda…doesn’t change anything. They’re unimportant, counter productive, and all you’re doing is stroking your cock over how virtuous you are because you don’t like the fact that goys have guns.
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.
Who has guns?
The political Right.
Who does not have guns?
The political left.
Who is engaging in political violence because they lost the election and want to try and terrify people into obeying them anyway?
The political Left.
What is standing in the way of this violence and intimidation?
People with Guns.
Who profits if the Guns go away?
The people who cannot be shot when they attempt to terrorize people into obeying them.
I.E. the Progressives.
Guns do not lead to bloodbaths. Violence leads to blood baths. Guns just make it easier. And if you’re the side without the guns, then you’re the side who loses the blood bath. And nothing pisses the progressives off more than Losing. Because, for some reason, they think that if there are no guns, they have the best chance at winning a political war. But, just as the founding father’s intended, an armed populace stands in their way.
At this point, bickering about the niceties of textual interpretation, whether the history of the amendment supports this view or that, and how legislators can solve this problem within the confines of the constitution is useless drivel that will lead to more of the same. We need a mass movement of those who are fed up with the long-dead Founders’ view of the world ruling current day politics. A mass movement of those who will stand up and say that our founding document was wrong and needs to be changed. A mass movement of those who will thumb their nose at the NRA, an organization that is nothing more than the political wing of the country’s gun manufacturers, and say enough is enough.
Case in point.
“These dead white men with their failed document stand in the way. We need to have a revolution to replace their document with something of our own, that fits our beliefs and gives us the power. And the first step to this is a mass revolt that takes away the rights of other people to defend themselves with guns.”
I mean, I would like to thank Cohen for being so blatantly obvious about his desires.
The Second Amendment must be repealed, and it is the essence of American democracy to say so.
It may be the essence of American democracy to say so…but it would be the antithesis of American democracy to do so.