After Hours

General discussion


Constitutional Rights vs Voice of the People

By aidemzo_adanac ·
Tags: Off Topic
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 ****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.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

The Majority Never Trumps the Constitution

by BFilmFan In reply to Constitutional Rights vs ...

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.

Collapse -

The Constitution IS the will of the majority.

by CharlieSpencer In reply to The Majority Never Trumps ...

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?

Collapse -

Good comments!

by aidemzo_adanac In reply to The Constitution IS the w ...

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 **** 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.

Collapse -

"See me back? I'm new!"

by CharlieSpencer In reply to Good comments!

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

Collapse -

Being Back

by BFilmFan In reply to "See me back? I'm new!"

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.

Collapse -

Ahh that makes sense, sorry

by aidemzo_adanac In reply to "See me back? I'm new!"

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

Collapse -

That's because you're new...

by AnsuGisalas In reply to Ahh that makes sense, sor ...

stick around for as long as I have, and you won't be confused... oh, wait. No, it just gets worse, really :^0

Collapse -

Ansu, are you in on the joke? No text.

by CharlieSpencer In reply to That's because you're new ...
Collapse -

What joke?

by AnsuGisalas In reply to That's because you're new ...
Collapse -

Then don't encourage a_a;

by CharlieSpencer In reply to That's because you're new ...

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.

Related Discussions

Related Forums