Discussion on:

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.

At one time, the majority of the country agreed:

It was good to own other human beings.

It was good that only people with property could vote.

It was good that women could not vote.

It was good that minorities could not vote.

My take on the whole mess:

Rule by democracy is a quick slide into totalitarianism.

The first 10 amendments of the Constirution are designed to protect the people from the government. Any other argument is simply ignorant of the history of the document.

All of the former policies you point out were eventually overridden by Constitutional amendments as the opinion of the majority changed, not against their will. I don't need to go into the details of passing an amendment for you, but it's darn near impossible without majority approval, especially when it hits the state legislatures for ratification.

Likewise, as the majority once passed the second amendment, the majority can lean on its representatives to repeal it (and any others), as other amendments have been repealed. That's why there's an amending mechanism in the first place. If the Founding Fathers hadn't intended the Constitution to be a living, alterable document, they wouldn't have included an amending process. The second amendment is no different from any other amendment. It was added to the original Constitution like the other amendments, and like them it can be changed or removed.

Good to see you back, by the way. Stick around a while, will ya?

See me back? I'm new!

I understand there's a process in place and that if the majority agree with it, they can amend it. What I don't see is any real action in that direction as it would be, unconstitutional, it seems.

IF there's even a vague hint toward ANY form of legislation, control, amendment...ANYTHING AT ALL, the noise gets so loud everyone runs, covers their ears and bites their tongues. It is simply unAmerican to many it seems.

Of course it will never be a reasoned debate on a focused topic. As soon as Obama says he wants to impose stricter regulations for obtaining a firearms permit, half of America stands up to shout about a left wing, black man is taking away their rights to protect their loved ones. How America has gone to hell in a hand basket, because someone might make it takes a few days longer for them to buy a new gun.

As a resident of another country, it's absolutely ridiculous that ANY defense, especially false opposition, would have any precedence in such cases.

I'm sure I'll get the boot again for speaking my mind sooner or later. Then again, I don't see that old knob of a blogger here anymore. One who was always right about topics he was completely devoid of any knowledge of.

That was directed to BFilmFan, the person I was replying to.

I was always around, just the old organization's social media policy aka The UnOfficial Gag Order, really kept me from saying much.

New Organization doesn't care a great deal, as long as I don't comment about them or one of their clients.

I am still getting used to these boards, forums or whatever they are called here.

stick around for as long as I have, and you won't be confused... oh, wait. No, it just gets worse, really

?

Bad enough he's worried about getting shot when he's within 10 or 12 miles of the border. Don't feed his schizophrenia.

Boy, this discussion just rolled over and died.

I live within 10 miles of the border (7 actually), but the lineups are tremendous (45mins - 1.5hrs avg. even in off times). I just drive another 15 minutes along 0 ave and the other crossing takes minutes. I'm in the states 3 or 4 times a month, cheap gas,

Americans with guns don't bother me, raising a child in America would though.

I won't disagree that amending the Constitution can be, and has been done. It's a difficult process on purpose on purpose and I think removal of any of the Bill Of Rights would be difficult, if not result in a second civil war.

No, they simply use Executive Orders and legislative and administrative law to limit our freedoms.

Ask yourself the next time there is a political convention, why in the world there is a Free Speech Zone.

As any politician would feed to the news. those Free Speech Zones are for allowing those people freedom of speech without hindrance. It allows for peaceful protest. As, generally, these groups are a minority in a large group of supporters, it would stop supporters from harming protesters and taking away their freedom to peacefully protest.

Now the real reason? So the print and video shots will only show raucous support for the furor. You don't get someone holding up a dead, oil covered duck while crying KILLERS, which would rain on the parade. That plus its easier to avoid getting shot when they are all in once place.

I think the root cause is the inability (or refusal) to see that life is not a zero-sum game. And that's as far down that road as I have time for, right now...

For guns, take away the right from anyone you don't feel is worthy of it (like the Founding Fathers did) - AND, for the select people you deem worthy of it, it's not a right, it's a DUTY. And you demand that they buy a firearm that the state approves, and then require them to go to regular training camps at their own expense.

I foresee a quick end to the gun debate following that.

So have the government build a militia to protect against the government?

Remember, the Founding Fathers were practically all atheists, so they weren't IDIOTS.

The government makes sure that the people know that guns aren't fun and games.
Like with little children, if you make smoking a chore, they'll stop by themselves.

If you want a gun, make it mandatory military training.

We all know that nobody with military training has been irresponsible with their gun.

That's all.

But is that enough? Considering most Americans spend time in the military at some time or other, I think the scale would be a broad one there too. I know you aren't forced into the military but it easier to count those who DIDN'T serve as opposed to those that have.