For people like myself who are not satisfied with the justifications for carrying dangerous weapons, it sometimes seems that your viewpoint isn’t important when it’s a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Keep in mind, the Constitution has been changed before and can change again as long as you’re willing to put your efforts in the right place in Washington to get laws changed.
Rachel Elmalawany
November 14, 2012
Columnist: Gun control doesn’t control enough
[Keep in mind, Ms. Elmalawany, the constitution can’t be changed “in Washington”. It takes quite a bit more than that.
Keep in mind, Ms. Elmalawany, the entire Bill of Rights was a qualifier for agreeing to the constitution to begin with. If one of those items are nulled out the agreement to form a union is nulled.
Keep in mind, Ms. Elmalawany, that if you were to successful in repealing the 13th Amendment you would encounter, and rightly so, “stiff resistance” in the implementation. There are probably just as many people that would resist the implementation of a 2nd Amendment repeal as there are that would resist a 13th Amendment repeal implementation.
Keep in mind, Ms. Elmalawany, there are about 220 million people in the U.S. that don’t own guns. There are about 80 million people who do and who consume about 10 billion rounds of ammo each year. That’s what we do for practice. Please don’t attempt to verify our level of resolve or the quality of our practice.—Joe]
What is it these people can’t seem to understand?
If you don’t want to carry a gun, then don’t!
How is it they can willfully force a choice on someone else in not being able to do “x*” but some how, my choice to do “x*” forces something on them. Other than being around and breathing air, what has my choice forced them to do? I have not put a gun on their belt, I have not told them they need to carry a firearm, I have merely decided to carry one myself.
Conversely though they want to tell me I cannot carry a firearm and must act like the ostrich they are.
Who’s forcing whom to do what here? We see which side really wants to force someone to do something, that’s the side wanting the government to tell someone what they can and can’t do, because government is force.
Personally Joe, if she wants to try and come and take my guns away, she’s more than welcome to. Frankly I’m getting tired of this waiting BS. Besides, I’ve assisted 3 new gun owners this week and convinced another coworker to buy another one to add to his collection.
So yes, feel free Rachel, it will be quite entertaining should you ever try. You and I both know you’re a chicken and would send others to do it in your stead.
*Where “X” is an action or choice that does not directly affect others around the user who decides to do it. For example deciding to make and eat a sandwich, deciding to wear jeans instead of shorts, going out into a field and blowing up pumpkins. These are all examples but if my exercise of “X” doesn’t directly cause harm to you or your property, you have no say in the matter. And remember a potentiality is not an actuality.
The numbers look even worse for her controlled for age. That 80 million gunowners probably includes only those 18 and up. There’s 311 million people in this country, but 23% are under 18, so there’s only 240 mil above 18 or so.
So, apples to apples, it’s 80 million versus 160 million, two to one, not almost three to one. And, worst case, the older children of the 80 mil probably should be added to that number. And, if the stereotypes are true, those gun owners probably have more children per capita than people who agree with Ms. Elmalanaway. And, given membership percentages in related organizations, the 80 mil are probably more motivated on the topic and would have a higher participation rate.
So, whichever political “box” she wants to choose, bring it.
“Sometimes”? Well yes; the Bill of Rights was created specifically to see to it that your “viewpoint” regarding an unalienable right won’t matter. The Bill of Rights is extremely anti-democratic because democracy, ultimately, is extremely anti-liberty. So no; you don’t get your way. Not constitutionally at any rate. So piss off.
I grok the phraseology, “dangerous weapon” too. Cute trick, but I don’t fall for it. I don’t suppose it could be called a weapon unless it were well and properly dangerous to one’s adversary;
“Freeze, Mothufuka, or I’ll shoot you with this here Nerf gun and you’ll be caressed by a soft, foam ball! I’m serious, damit!”
Joe; the constitution has been “changed” in Washington several times. The SCOTUS simply reinterprets it, or ignores it altogether. If Congress and the President ignore it too, who’s going to correct them?
Oops. I forgot the difference between an adversary and an enemy. An adversary may at times be dealt with using reason and persuasion, whereas you have to kill an enemy or you are beaten. In either case, we must do it with Grace (i.e. without malice or anger).
Matthew; my kids “owned” guns by age ten, which is to say that I bought guns they could use, and to which they had access pretty much all the time. Currently, my 15 year-old daughter has her choice of anything from a 22 LR pistol to an M1A or a twelve gauge, any time she needs them, and she knows how to use them. That’s gun safety– the enhanced safety that comes from easy access to, and knowledge of, firearms in the home and in public.
Joe, are you arguing that the second amendment could not be repealed by another amendment?
John,
There is a long-standing line of thinking that, since original ratification of the Constitution was conditional upon a forth-coming Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments are unalterable components of the Constitution, at least for those states that ratified the Constitution before the Bill of Rights went into effect. In that vein, removing or limiting ANY of the Bill of Rights by future amendment would cause a rescission of the ratification of the Constitution on behalf of the founding states.
Personally, I disagree with that line of thinking – if true, then the only logical and consistent conclusion would be that EVERY new state only ratified the Constitution because of how it was when they ratified it, thus any future attempt to amend the Constitution would likewise void their initial ratification.
The Constitution doesn’t provide for unalterable sections, nor does ratification of the Constitution by a new state “freeze” the Constitution in the form that existed when they entered the Union. Legislative appointment of Senators, alcohol sales, slavery, poll taxes, states allowed to limit suffrage to white males over the age of 21, ALL of these had states that joined the union while they were Constitutional, only to later have them overturned or significantly altered by amendment – yet their ratification of the Constitution is still legal, even if they did not ratify the amendment that changed them.
Nor are states precluded from ratifying new amendments that invalidate portions of the Constitution they initially had fought very hard for. For the “repealing any part of the Bill of Rights invalidates ratification” argument to be true AND practical, it would require that an “original” state not only refuse to ratify any such amendment, but that it is somehow PROHIBITED from doing so, despite not a single word to this effect being in the Constitution. They could have made the Bill of Rights a nonseverable (both individually and collectively) portion of the Constitution had they desired, requiring that any amendment to alter them would first require a separate amendment to remove the nonseveribility clause first, before any amendment to alter the Bill of Rights could be formally offered for ratification.
Her remarks are a great example of reality by fiat, a standard practice among progressives. Reality not to your liking? Pass a law, and presto-chango, reality is supposed to now alter itself magically to be more to your liking.
I don’t think reality works like that, but I’m not a progressive.
@John Farrier, I’ve heard that argued. I’m not a lawyer and as Geodkyt points out that argument is not settled.
I am quite sure that there are several traits that Rachel has other than just breathing that gun owners would object to. We are required to tolerate her beliefs ,but in return we cannot expect “equal” treatment. Progressives your name is duplicity.
It’s funny reading Barron’s post. The entire first part of it matches the argument a man in San Francisco is using for the right to walk the streets nude. Being nude is freedom.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/public-nudity-faces-ban-san-francisco-article-1.1204514
Are Idaho and Washington as free as San Francisco?