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.
Poll
