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.

I know some it would stop. Like the little old lady I saw in walmart testing out a pistol with a laser. Claiming she needed protection while she runs in the morning.

"Considering most Americans spend time in the military at some time or other...it easier to count those who DIDN'T serve as opposed to those that have."

Where did you get that notion?

ABC News said in 2011 there were under 23 million veterans, then roughly 7% of the population.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-veterans-numbers/story?id=14928136#1

The US Dept. of Veterans Affairs predicts by 2015 the number of living veterans will be less than 15 million, or less than 5% of the population.

https://www.va.gov/vetdata/Veteran_Population.asp

It's hardly worth adding in the 2.3 million currently on active or reserve status, less than 1% of the population.

Almost all Americans I have spoken with have either been in the military or have a family member in the military; I can't think of any who haven't anyway. Perhaps many are full of BS and it's just a pride thing to say they were but it sure as hell seems that everyone has served at one time or another.

P.S. You are also referring to veterans only, not the 4 million members you have today also (active, reserve and paramilitary). Being the 2nd largest military in the world and having such easy access to guns, just makes America a military focused country. Sort of a moot point though, ask almost anyone in the world and you are seen through the same eyes. "America" (a generalization) is obsessed with military, guns and war. Doesn't matter what country you are in, that's the common understanding.

Now I'm cleaning my monitor !

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

Priceless!

You find fault in the statement? If so, you might take a peek back into what we know as American history. Indeed, it would be in err to suggest that all of the Founders were Atheists. However, there can be little doubt from what we might discern today, that few of them were Christians.
Heck, the religious oppression experienced abroad is what brought many here to begin with!

That said, I feel that making the assumption that anyone choosing to believe in God is an idiot is foolish as well. Idiots abound on all sides of any argument or belief. His manner of expressing the reality of the matter leaves no middle ground. Not a good idea for something so irrefutably beyond one's ability to demonstrate or refute.

Just stop shooting each other. It's not a difficult concept. People in other countries have guns without the constitutional right to, and they are not breaking into schools and shooting children. That's an American thing.

Call a cease fire and tell others to stop buying and selling drugs while you are at it.

From there just tell people to stop getting people pregnant when they aren't ready to have children, rape isn't a good things and they should stop all that too.

The only problem with all that is eventually you wake up and realize it's morning again.

Killing is good, lets round up children and randomly shoot up a school each week. That's the American way right? Since clearly you have given up in trying to stop people from shooting children. You might as well join in with your countrymen right?

I might have accepted them. To simply suggest. "stop shooting each other" is a fantasy at best. Unfortunately we live in the real world and such things are not reality.

If it was as easy as you put forth, why hasn't possibly facing life in prison stopped it?
It is illegal, wouldn't that trump "stop shooting each other"?

I'm sure someone thought of your idea already, centuries before the US was even discovered.

When people speak of other nations that have very few homicides by firearms each year, it's generally toward countries that have stricter gun control laws, despite having similar "rights" in their bill of rights. It's harder to obtain a legal firearm and the citizens of those nations don't have a desire to carry a concealed weapon as if its a God given right.

It's a typical sense of entitlement simply due to a 230 year old document, written in a time when such atrocities. such as children on school shooting sprees, were not the forefront of society.
Thousands upon thousands of Americans die each year as a result of hanging on to this outdated BS and and yet Americans are scratching their heads as to why and how to reduce it?

You can't change it because it's sacred, you must abide by it, as it is sacred.

I'm not against guns ownership at all, I'm not against protecting one's property, loved ones or person, with enough force to stop the threat (in which case shooting any intruders often doesn't play a role at all).

I just don't like cowboys and gun toting clowns that are so ignorant and irresponsible that they can't recognize the problem beyond whining about the left wing in the process.

But choosing not to kill is a very easy thing to do.

You say its a fantasy to not shoot people. How so? The only other places where these mass shooting happens are in war zones and terrorists zones. That's the company America keeps. How is it a fantasy when a good chuck of the world live it as a reality. Do you just mean it is a fantasy to an American? Because if so, tell them to leave, move to another country and their fantasy can be a reality.

I'm sure someone thought of your idea already, centuries before the US was even discovered.
your right, we can probably find lots of countries were the citizens don't feel the need to kill each other.

When people speak of other nations that have very few homicides by firearms each year, it's generally toward countries that have stricter gun control laws, despite having similar "rights" in their bill of rights. It's harder to obtain a legal firearm and the citizens of those nations don't have a desire to carry a concealed weapon as if its a God given right.
I suggested making it harder by requiring military training. You refused that too.

It's a typical sense of entitlement simply due to a 230 year old document, written in a time when such atrocities. such as children on school shooting sprees, were not the forefront of society.
Sure they were, America has been constantly at war.

Thousands upon thousands of Americans die each year as a result of hanging on to this outdated BS and and yet Americans are scratching their heads as to why and how to reduce it?
Plenty want to change it. Problem is, they are not united. America still suffers north vs south, left vs right.
Maybe one day they will, but probably not, not until it is so bad that people start en mass moving away from America.

I'm not against guns ownership at all, I'm not against protecting one's property, loved ones or person, with enough force to stop the threat (in which case shooting any intruders often doesn't play a role at all).
Tasers are more fun anyways.
In Canada it is actually illegal to shoot someone that is invading your home. Americans use this as an example to why having guns is good. But the fact is, the home invasions rarely happen, and instances where people are killed are even rarer. Of course, I would still shoot the attacker dead if I had the opportunity.

I just don't like cowboys and gun toting clowns that are so ignorant and irresponsible that they can't recognize the problem beyond whining about the left wing in the process.
It seems like a good chunk of Americans fall into this category.

The "made up" comment: "The only other places where these mass shooting happens are in war zones and terrorists zones. That's the company America keeps."

July 22, 2011: At least 80 people are killed at a summer camp on the Norwegian island of Utoya. A man arrested also is suspected in a blast earlier the same day in downtown Oslo that killed seven. (This gunman, by the way, was sentenced to 21 years of preventive detention,)

April 30, 2009: Farda Gadyrov, 29, enters the prestigious Azerbaijan State Oil Academy in the capital, Baku, armed with an automatic pistol and clips. He kills 12 people before killing himself as police close in.

Sept. 23, 2008: Matti Saari, 22, walks into a vocational college in Kauhajoki, Finland, and opens fire, killing 10 people and burning their bodies with firebombs before shooting himself fatally in the head.

Nov. 7, 2007: After revealing plans for his attack in YouTube postings, 18-year-old Pekka-Eric Auvinen fires kills eight people at his high school in Tuusula, Finland

April 26, 2002: Robert Steinhaeuser, 19, who had been expelled from school in Erfurt, Germany, kills 13 teachers, two former classmates and policeman, before committing suicide

April 28, 1996: Martin Bryant, 29, bursts into cafeteria in seaside resort of Port Arthur in Tasmania, Australia, shooting 20 people to death. Driving away, he kills 15 others. He was captured and imprisoned.

March 13, 1996: Thomas Hamilton, 43, kills 16 kindergarten children and their teacher in elementary school in Dunblane, Scotland, and then kills himself.

Dec. 6, 1989: Marc Lepine, 25, bursts into Montreals Ecole Polytechnique college, shooting at women he encounters, killing nine and then himself

Aug. 19, 1987: Michael Ryan, 27, kills 16 people in small market town of Hungerford, England, and then shoots himself dead after being cornered by police.
_____________________

P.S. And the really sad thing is, when such "made up" comments are called-out and corrected, the person who made-up the comment will neither retract the comment, or change the mind-set that led to making the comment - and will, most likely, continue saying (and thinking) it.

You had to trawl more than one continent and a quarter of a century to get that list. Then you posted it to prove - what? That Slayer used a bit of hyperbole.

This is not made up. In excess of one million US citizens have been killed by firearms in the period covered by your list, above. Nowhere, outside of a war zone, comes close.

I posted all the dates, facts, and figures. I mislead nothing. I replied to a "mass murder" claim, not your total gun related deaths - like the ones that take place in the gang infested areas of our larger metropolitan areas - hundreds each year in Chicago alone!

P.S. You, Neil, and all the others around here CONTINUALLY post misleading crap. If you want to make comparisons with America, you'd better compare it to the whole of Europe. You and I both know what the definition of "state" is, although not many around here probably do. The United States of America would be more accurately compared to a figurative United States of Europe, so as to include land mass, diversity, population, etc. Anything less is either misleading or dishonest.

Is your point that it can be worse elsewhere? Fine, I'll agree.
Your most recent, the Oslo killings. That was really bad. But are you comparing America's shooting rates to that one incident in Oslo?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Take a look at that. Oddly America isn't that bad in comparison.
Greenland is worse. Are people aiming at polar bears and accidentally shooting fat people in white snowsuits?

But if America was so safe, why does everyone feel they need a gun to protect themselves?

The EU consists of 27 "states" with a total population of 503.5 million approximately 38% more than the US with over 311.5 million or a difference of 192 million, a difference that is 5.5 times the TOTAL POPULATION of Canada, just the DIFFERENCE in population.

With a population difference of over 192 million people, the EU has approximately 60% FEWER intentional deaths by handgun each year.

In real numbers, the total intentional deaths in the EU by handgun for 2012 were 5,849 (again as a total of 27 countries/states)

In real numbers, the total intentional deaths in the US by handgun
for 2012 were 14,748.

How can anyone POSSIBLY compare the two and see ANY comparison whatsoever in these figures?
192 million more people, in the WHOLE EU, and yet 8,629 fewer intentional homicides by handgun than in the USA?

There is a MASSIVE difference in gun laws too.

You said, "The only other places where these mass shooting happens are in war zones and terrorists zones. That's the company America keeps."

The "war zone" of Norway saw well over eighty (80+) killed in one day - mostly young children - in the killing fields of that Nordic European nation state - much more than the American state of Connecticut.

.And that "war zone" in the Nordic European nation state of Finland, there were just as many as in the American state of Connecticut - well over 20.

Over the past five years, there were MORE gun related mass murders in Nordic Europe than in the whole of America's New England region.

That's a high pedestal you put yourself on. lol

/sarcasm

I think he's saying that, as a war zone, it's not much worse than others that he personally sees as a war zone also. Stats between the EU and US prove otherwise though.

Nobody can possibly claim that the US is not a war zone, I think even the president would find that a stretch.

Finland has more guns than is wise : 1,5 million firearms for a population of 6 million, and for that reason Finland has had school shootings. However, their number is less than a handful in over twenty years.

I know you're such a good Poker player, that you'd win most of the pots.

You're SO GOOD, in fact, that the other players at the table will start to cry foul (or fowl if the chicken tenders are gone). No fair, they will say. You grew up with a Poker playing mama as a mama, and your birth circumstances gives you an unfair advantage.

Since I've played Poker with this crowd before, I know they'll try to make the game more "fair" for other players ("fair" will be their word, not yours) - you know, for those players who weren't born with a silver Poker Chip in their hands. They like to vote, so be forewarned.

I was once sitting pretty with trip tens, and they "voted" to make two pair, if they were all face cards, BEAT three of a kind. How do you like that? They voted to change the friggin' rules in midstream and I lost the friggin' hand!

They should have taken action to change the rules the proper way, you know, through the Poker Congress or whatever. But no, they just took a straw vote and I lost!

The constitution is the rules of the game, so to speak. It's why we DO NOT have a Democracy in America. The founders knew that a pure democracy would become just as tyrannical as a dictatorship - tyranny of the majority. That's why we have a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner. A Constitutional Republic compels them play by the rules and not eat the lamb - even if the lamb is a millionaire and the wolves are starving.

At one time, the federal government did not have the power to collect income tax. It took a Constitutional Amendment - changing the rules; adding to the power we give the government.

In theory, the federal government has no power except that which is specifically enumerated in the Constitution, either by article or amendment.

The CORRECT way to give power to the government of the United States IS NOT through a vote of the people (or through a vote in Congress), but rather through a change to the constitution - voting to amend the constitution, which takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress and two-thirds of the states' legislators.

Today, we have a government that IS NOT playing by the rules. Show me in the constitution, for example, the specific article or amendment (note I said "specific") which bestows upon the federal government the power to force citizens of the USA to buy a specific product (medical insurance). And unfortunately, we have an electorate who is either too ignorant and uninformed, or they feel so elitist, or others who feel so entitled, that they, too, will circumvent the Constitution at every turn. And the politicians play these voters like a fine tuned fiddle.

Generally speaking, most Americans don't fully understand our constitution, much less people from other countries. Everything ANSU has said in this discussion, for example, is dead wrong. He makes a silly assertion and treats it as truth. Kind of like a lot of Americans do.

And that is the problem. People don't want to play by the rules. They want to make up their own.

(And for those who might feel compelled to say something silly like, life is not a game, blah, blah, blah...... well, please spare us all.)

By the way, the constitution was not written for 18th Century society, as you've too often, and incorrectly, suggested. It was written for human nature. Societies might change, but human nature does not. It's a timeless challenge for which no perfect solution can be found, because those humans actually see the world through different colored glasses, they have different dreams and ambitions, they have different values and cultural considerations, religious beliefs, etc.

As such, it's not practical to try to find "common ground", so to speak, on which everyone can agree, but rather find a way to accommodate the differences. And in my opinion, the best effort in the history of mankind to accommodate such differences was initiated in 18th Century America. And it's a damn shame we have people who don't even understand it, but who are trying to destroy it. .

"... to amend the constitution, which takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress and two-thirds of the states' legislators."

It takes ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures, not two-thirds. It's rare I can catch you on a point of Constitutional accuracy. I'll treasure the moment.

..... greatly appreciated, as I hate misinformation (especially if it comes from me).

I would make some silly excuse for my error, but I'll not ruin your moment.

Thanks for the chuckle; I needed it today.

The constitution is so enduring, in part, because it's so short. Most countries seem to view their constitutions as the supreme legal code, and write the document as though it were to be the clear cut arbiter of every argument. The U.S. document lays out a skeletal structure of government, a few goals and principles, and a minimal number of managing directives. It is then up to each age to fit its new set of problems against that short script, with the help of constitutional courts.

The constitution works, and lasts, because it is flexible, and allows government to evolve in line with the evolution of the problems of government.