Voltron Is awesome.l
AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.
"Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough."
I am not sure what my answer would be. But I am curious. What is the small arms treaty? Is that a real threat or not?
The Definition of Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
I might have said this before recently, but I think strict adherence to the Constitution is overrated. I know that sounds horrible, but I just think times were different in the 18th century to the point that laws that might have made perfect sense then don't make sense now. The "right to bear arms" doesn't really have the same the implications it used to.
Consider several things:
1. the type of arms available then compared to now (you couldn't exactly massacre a theater full of people with a flintlock musket)
2. the US was a smaller, less diverse, and a more vulnerable country back then
3. guns were not as widely produced as they are now
4. the amount of massacres and shootings that occur these days compared to back then
All those things carry a lot of weight in this debate. This doesn't mean we need to have an all out ban on all guns, and at the end of the day it's about the person holding the gun rather than the gun itself. Plus, I can see why people like guns and I definitely agree with the need for some sort of defense at home, for defense against tyranny, or for when the apocalypse hits. However, why do we realistically need military grade equipment for civilian use? Assault weapons? Stuff that is intended more for insurgency rather than personal defense? Why allow the craziest folks access to this stuff? We can either increase control on more powerful guns or take steps to improve education and stuff to prevent this from happening in the first place, but only one of those things is realistic in the short-term. Only one of those things can really prevent shootings and pointless deaths now.
So, here is where I disagree with Obama (I think), because I'm not entirely sure where he would draw the line on gun control. You'd think Obama's admin wants all guns banned all the time (which I disagree with), but it's tough to interpret that considering his actions as president. Going back to what you said, I'm not entirely sure where the SCOTUS would draw the line either. So as frustrating as the POTUS' stance on guns has been for pro-gun folks, it's been similarly frustrating to people like me to. I just don't know what to think about this sometimes, but it's worth at least doing something rather than doing nothing.