Reply to Message
Constitutional Rights vs Voice of the People
Disclaimer: I am not stating a personal position either way. I have mixed feelings toward the issue and, while it is not taking place in my country, it is certainly something many US friends and associates are debating so it is still newsworthy for me.
Constitutional Rights vs Voice of the People:
The US 2nd amendment to the Constitution , as every American knows, allow for the right to bear arms due to the need of a well regulated militia to protect a free state or for personal defense.
There are a million different ways of defining it further as the text was initially so vague, yet very specifically targeted in its application. This application seems to span a much broader application these days. Now it seems that any US citizen that wants to carry a concealed weapon states its a Constitutional right as if God himself had provided such open choice. There seems to be a very loose understanding/interpretation of the application of such rights, right across the board. Even freedom of speech is taken to an extreme with people feeling they can say what they want to say, wherever and whenever, regardless if in a private business, website or whatever. 1st amendment is not my focus here though.
On the radio today they were saying how almost 60% of Americans agree with Obama's desire to increase gun control and place tighter restrictions regarding issuing a CCW licence and simply making screening a bit tougher for people, helping to weed out SOME of the nutjobs and yet upstanding citizens should still not have any issues obtaining a permit.
Almost 60% is not some staggering landslide in favour, and such pols are usually very loosely applied and no where near as accurate as a formal vote, well as accurate as a formal vote is SUPPOSED to be anyway.
The number, whether 60% or merely 51% is STILL a majority though. So where is the line for Americans?
IF, it is found that a majority are in favour of stricter gun control laws, (I am not talking about completely eliminating everyone's right to own a firearm), then does that not supersede Constitutional amendments?
TR has an interesting cross section of red and blue states so I am sure personal opinions vary but I think the problem, as it seems happens always in the US, is understanding of the proposed actions.
Media sensationalizes such events into a pi$$ing contest between left and right, as a result, the causation and proposed resolutions are completely lost. Such as the GW debate, reasons for recent wars etc. There's so much smoke and mirrors shown to public that nobody knows what they are arguing about.
So bottom line, and merely from what I understand, Obama is not seeking to rid Americans of their right to bear arms (which incidentally was carried over from a British law allowing Protestants to protect themselves in the late 1600's). Obama is seeking to make obtaining a firearm licence a bit harder. Increased screening, perhaps a delay when you want to buy a new .45 when the tax return comes in.
Given recent events in the US:
How can ANYONE oppose such control when it is NOT removing your civil rights and stands to help a problem everyone recognizes no matter their political views?
When does the majority actually trump the constitution?
What is the fear so many Americans share? Is it loss of rights, established for an 18th century society, that they see becoming greater and greater over time? Is it that they simply don't understand what is being proposed because they are blinded by a biased media?
Questions, not opinions, it would be nice to have a healthy debate without right vs left mudslinging as that is what I see as clouding the path to reality and causing such fury in the masses.
Constitutional Rights vs Voice of the People:
The US 2nd amendment to the Constitution , as every American knows, allow for the right to bear arms due to the need of a well regulated militia to protect a free state or for personal defense.
There are a million different ways of defining it further as the text was initially so vague, yet very specifically targeted in its application. This application seems to span a much broader application these days. Now it seems that any US citizen that wants to carry a concealed weapon states its a Constitutional right as if God himself had provided such open choice. There seems to be a very loose understanding/interpretation of the application of such rights, right across the board. Even freedom of speech is taken to an extreme with people feeling they can say what they want to say, wherever and whenever, regardless if in a private business, website or whatever. 1st amendment is not my focus here though.
On the radio today they were saying how almost 60% of Americans agree with Obama's desire to increase gun control and place tighter restrictions regarding issuing a CCW licence and simply making screening a bit tougher for people, helping to weed out SOME of the nutjobs and yet upstanding citizens should still not have any issues obtaining a permit.
Almost 60% is not some staggering landslide in favour, and such pols are usually very loosely applied and no where near as accurate as a formal vote, well as accurate as a formal vote is SUPPOSED to be anyway.
The number, whether 60% or merely 51% is STILL a majority though. So where is the line for Americans?
IF, it is found that a majority are in favour of stricter gun control laws, (I am not talking about completely eliminating everyone's right to own a firearm), then does that not supersede Constitutional amendments?
TR has an interesting cross section of red and blue states so I am sure personal opinions vary but I think the problem, as it seems happens always in the US, is understanding of the proposed actions.
Media sensationalizes such events into a pi$$ing contest between left and right, as a result, the causation and proposed resolutions are completely lost. Such as the GW debate, reasons for recent wars etc. There's so much smoke and mirrors shown to public that nobody knows what they are arguing about.
So bottom line, and merely from what I understand, Obama is not seeking to rid Americans of their right to bear arms (which incidentally was carried over from a British law allowing Protestants to protect themselves in the late 1600's). Obama is seeking to make obtaining a firearm licence a bit harder. Increased screening, perhaps a delay when you want to buy a new .45 when the tax return comes in.
Given recent events in the US:
How can ANYONE oppose such control when it is NOT removing your civil rights and stands to help a problem everyone recognizes no matter their political views?
When does the majority actually trump the constitution?
What is the fear so many Americans share? Is it loss of rights, established for an 18th century society, that they see becoming greater and greater over time? Is it that they simply don't understand what is being proposed because they are blinded by a biased media?
Questions, not opinions, it would be nice to have a healthy debate without right vs left mudslinging as that is what I see as clouding the path to reality and causing such fury in the masses.
Posted by aidemzo_adanac
16th Jan
