And then Vitamin C tablets! And so on down the slippery slope until our own DNA will be banned!
No, they are taking up sniper positions outside of concerts and shooting at random strangers.
I do like how you look at the stats, and you say, once you subtract all the violence, then violence isn’t a problem anymore.
Your last point isn’t really on the mark there either. I thought that it was the same group of people who were against guns as are against violent video games.
Some cites that I just looked at to back it up, one is fake news, see if you can spot it!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/12/video-games-gun-violence_n_3071632.html
http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/game-over-for-video-game-violence-alarmism/
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/277781-dem-bill-would-ban-sale-of-violent-games-to-minors
Legally nothing would change if “the 2nd Amendment is repealed using proper measures”. The right to arms is not granted, given, created or established by the 2ndA thus the right is not in any manner dependent upon the 2nd for its existence.
The 2ndA doesn’t “do” anything but redundantly forbid the government to exercise powers it was never given.
Because of that express prohibition of acting against the right to arms, such a repeal would be necessary to facilitate forced citizen disarmament. The real power to force disarmament would need to come from a new grant of power to allow government to act against the possession and use of the personal arms of the private citizen.
My position would be that such an amendment and new power would be illegitimate even if the Article V process was followed.
Such a surrender of sovereignty (and that is what it is, a complete surrender of force) would violate the most foundational principles of the social compact of the Constitution. IOW, the Constitution can’t be used to negate foundational principle . . . Only a complete remake can do that.
I see these foundational principles as:
a) all governmental power is derived from the people.
b) government possesses only the limited powers expressly conferred (surrendered) to it, by the people.
c) there exist certain powers over one’s self that are too important to ever be surrendered to another person (un/inalienable rights)
d) no legitimate government (one established to protect the inherent / pre-existing rights of the people) would accept the surrender of those rights even if it was offered.
e) government only exercises those limited powers with the consent of the people.
f) if government violates the principles of its establishment it is no longer “the government established by the Constitution”; it has become something else acting without constitutional legitimacy.
g) to protect themselves from a rogue government, the people retain the right to rescind that consent to be governed, reclaim the powers originally granted to government and to unseat the usurpers with force if necessary.
That last one is why the 2nd Amendment is there, to protect the right of political self-defense by preserving the retained right of the people to rescind their consent to be governed.
So, I would say that because the right of self-defense is unalienable any surrender of the right to arms is illegitimate.
This argument would work a lot better if police weren’t currently acting on rules that let them indiscriminately seize the property of anybody suspected of being vaguely associated with a crime. While I do agree that we really ought to have more protections against seizure of private property than we do, we clearly don’t.
And honestly, if the government made guns illegal to own, even under more a more reasonable interpretation of law there would be nothing stopping them from also seizing them. The government seizes contraband (like drugs) all the time and as a matter of course.
I’m trying to find the part of the Constitution that exempts the 2nd Amendment from the rules for repeal that all the other Amendments must adhere to. Maybe it was a Supreme Court decision I missed?
Well, my argument is based in the sincere hope that the debate over whether the 2nd can be repealed and government be empowered to forcibly disarm citizens would be focused on and benchmarked from the Constitution and its foundational principles and not on what police get away with now.
Yes, the Constitution can be amended, and amendments can be repealed by further amendments. It’s even been done before. Where do you see any debate?
I’d predict that a lot of those who claim to be all about “law and order” would become a lot less lawful and orderly. I’m thinking of how many of those same types cheered the Bundy’s (or whoever their names were) occupying of federal land.
But only a small handful had enough courage of their principles to actually join them. Including no one on this board.
Just send 'em a bag of dicks and laugh.
I didn’t say that the act of repealing the 2nd couldn’t be done . . . I argue that the subsequent act of surrendering an unalienable right would be illegitimate. The Constitution is founded on certain principles and these principles are untouchable / unchangeable / permanent for as long as the Constitution is in force. Essentially I argue the child can not alter its parents.
I would say Marbury speaks to it . . . Principles come first, are deemed fundamental and the since the powers granted to the government through the Constitution are strictly limited those principles are permanent. All actions of government must be in obedience to and confined within those principles. If the principles of the Constitution are no longer conducive to the happiness of the people, the whole compact must be dissolved and a new constitution, founded on new principles should be established.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
[INDENT]"The question whether an act repugnant to the Constitution can become the law of the land is a question deeply interesting to the United States, but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognise certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.
That the people have an original right to establish for their future government such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.
This original and supreme will organizes the government and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.
The Government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the Legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may at any time be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited acts allowed are of equal obligation."
[/INDENT]
In addition to that I would argue that repealing a provision of the original Bill of Rights could create a constitutional crisis because states made their ratification of the Constitution contingent upon having those protections added. If enough original states resent the rescinding of the 2ndA and move to rescind their original ratification of the Constitution, the 1789 ratification could be argued to be void.
This argument also cascades into other crises and dilemmas that demonstrate that the entire idea of repealing the 2ndA is ridiculous.
Most state constitutions call out the rights of the citizen before powers are conferred. The power to restrict the right to arms of say, Pennsylvania citizens has been excepted out of the powers of the PA state legislature. Would those states first need to hold their own constitutional conventions to grant to their legislatures the power to give away to the feds, a right that their state constitutions call out as being untouchable right of their citizen?
It also should be noted that states have always responded to federal power grabs (or threatened power grabs) of gun rights by expanding the right or clarifying the right in their own constitutions. Professor Volokh’s compilation of state RKBA provisions and their ratification dates and modification dates is very interesting. Just scan it for states that either took the step of enacting a RKBA provision or enhanced their existing one after the GCA-68 or in the 80’s and on, after Reagan was shot and the ramp-up to the Brady Act.
.
Personally, I think that amendment 28 should say that gun laws go to the states, and the federal govts only role will be in helping states to enforce their gun laws.
Then the states get to choose. Some states will be stricter than others. You get a choice of what kind of gun laws you want to live under.
The ATF’s primary job would be in detecting and preventing interstate trafficking of weapons, especially to states that have stricter rules.
You’d be OK if Utah decided to legalize the manufacture, sale, and possession of full-auto machine guns?
No, you are arguing that a child can never grow up, and must always follow the rules laid down by their parents, no matter how dated or counterproductive those rules may be.
As long as the ATF can be utilized by the states to prevent such things from entering into states that they are illegal, sure. And, you can convince your state legislature to do so.
If Utah becomes a massive arms manufacturer, you may have ATF agents sitting on all your outbound roads, pulling over anyone that looks like they are smuggling weapons, similar to how cops hang out outside colorado’s borders to catch people with weed.
If Ohio makes having a machine gun a crime that gets you a decade or more in prison, I don’t really care what you guys do over there.
Fantastic. States rights are awesome.
On a side note: How do you feel about it if Utah makes providing an abortion a crime that gets you a decade or more in prison?
Can we not jimmy other volatile topics into this thread, please?
As far as I’m concerned you’ve made your point: states rights suck and disintegrate our country as a union.