Magnum Mike
New member
Man this is getting ridiculous! Our forefathers started a war over taxing a drink! The people were meant to be armed to protect us from the goverment taking us over!
We are the minority, does the majority have right to disarm us?
- Thread starter cold dead hands
- Start date
It may only be 40% of the population that are gun owners, but according to a couple of articles that I've seen recently, the support for gun ownership extends beyond those who own them. Here's a quote from an article on CNN (italics are mine):
For the full article:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/18/scotus.guns/index.html
For the full article:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/18/scotus.guns/index.html
I think we need to stand back and look at the whole picture of our country. The fact is that this country cannot maintain its current course. It is not one issue, but many issues. Borders, government spending, foreign policy, trade policy, welfare, Medicare, Social Security. This country simply isn't going to make it long enough for the incremental bans to be put in place. The people have found that they can vote themselves money from the public coffers.
The reason people get to fret and sweat over guns and stuff is that their lives have become so cushy that they have nothing better to do but see imaginary threats. The government has come to provide too much for too many. When the hard times come, more pressing matters will take the stage and people are going to discover that they have to rely on themselves.
The reason people get to fret and sweat over guns and stuff is that their lives have become so cushy that they have nothing better to do but see imaginary threats. The government has come to provide too much for too many. When the hard times come, more pressing matters will take the stage and people are going to discover that they have to rely on themselves.
Hugh Damright
New member
The US is not a State and the majority have no power beyond what the States grant them. At the State level, the majority has great power, including the power to alter or abolish government. However, a free government is not an absolute government, and I think that generally the States have declarations about the RKBA. Further, even if the people of a State wanted to disarm a minority and amended their Constitution to support their desire, the federal government might step in ... it depends ... if we are talking about disarming a minority such as blacks then that would violate the 14th, but if we're talking about disarming a minority such as violent felons then I don't see a problem.
Hugh Damright
New member
I don't think so ... it's not as if the Constitution is amended by a popular vote. I'm thinking that 3/4 of the States must agree to an amendment, which means that it takes 13 States to stop an amendment ... if I'm doing the math correctly, the 13 smallest (least populated) States contain less than 5% of the population, and so theoretically 5% of the people could stop an amendment.
A poll doesn't tell the whole story.
Even in splitting people into 2 groups, there's the matter of "but how hard".
Most people want "assault weapons" and "baby-killer bullets" banned. Most don't think of such a ban in terms of that someone owning one should be in jail for 20 years; but I digress. . . People who actually own "assault weapons" disagree - a LOT. A lot of the people who want them banned - do if you ask them; but mostly don't really give a s**t.
The 23% who are hardcore gun owners/sympathizers care more about guns than the 77% who would support any given ban (while answering the poll they're probably thinking about their big interest).
This is why you have less people working for Sarah Brady than the NRA - gun nuts get to go squeeze off a few at the range - how many people can work how hard for a non-activity? In some ways, it'd be like me joining organizations of non-hanggliders, non-soccer-players, and non-bentley-owners - hard to keep interest as the people involved in the positive activity can.
Australia was brought up; but it was an advanced case. The numbers of gun owners had been culled by laws designed to reduce participation (licensing/registration and certain bans). Also, the pretext for owning them for defense had been removed from the culture entirely (the most rednecky gunowner wouldn't even suggest shooting a burglar). And in a more socialized population, people talk less of "rights" as they do in the US with such emphasis (both legitimate/full of cra*) - i.e. in the present culture an Australian gunowner isn't as "certain" the majority didn't have a right to disarm him as an American one.
Even in splitting people into 2 groups, there's the matter of "but how hard".
Most people want "assault weapons" and "baby-killer bullets" banned. Most don't think of such a ban in terms of that someone owning one should be in jail for 20 years; but I digress. . . People who actually own "assault weapons" disagree - a LOT. A lot of the people who want them banned - do if you ask them; but mostly don't really give a s**t.
The 23% who are hardcore gun owners/sympathizers care more about guns than the 77% who would support any given ban (while answering the poll they're probably thinking about their big interest).
This is why you have less people working for Sarah Brady than the NRA - gun nuts get to go squeeze off a few at the range - how many people can work how hard for a non-activity? In some ways, it'd be like me joining organizations of non-hanggliders, non-soccer-players, and non-bentley-owners - hard to keep interest as the people involved in the positive activity can.
Australia was brought up; but it was an advanced case. The numbers of gun owners had been culled by laws designed to reduce participation (licensing/registration and certain bans). Also, the pretext for owning them for defense had been removed from the culture entirely (the most rednecky gunowner wouldn't even suggest shooting a burglar). And in a more socialized population, people talk less of "rights" as they do in the US with such emphasis (both legitimate/full of cra*) - i.e. in the present culture an Australian gunowner isn't as "certain" the majority didn't have a right to disarm him as an American one.
Hugh Damright
New member
The US is not a popular government, it is a federal system. As I have previously explained, an amendment could pass 95% of a popular vote and still not pass 3/4 of the States. Or is my math incorrect?
Congress drafts amendments and sends them to the States for their consideration. One House of that Congress is representative of the people. I don't see how we get from there to the notion that the majority of the people have a right to amend the US Constitution.
Can't the States call a convention and draft an amendment, sending it to the States for ratification, bypassing the US Congress and any "popular vote"? It seems to me that the States have the right to amend the Constitution, because it is a compact between the States.
The idea that the majority could ban guns defies so many aspects of US government that I think it represents a complete subversion of our frame of government, justifying secession, civil war, and whatever means might be necessary to secure that Virginia is a free State, meaning that it is controlled by Virginians, and not by some national majority. But then, we crossed that line generations ago, didn't we? Still, I think it's important that we don't lose sight of the Framers' Constitution, and start thinking that the US Constitution frames a popular/national/absolute government with the power to ban guns.
Who would disarm you?
Let's see, if it was mandated to turn them in I'd guess the following under the direction of Dept of Homeland Security:
Blackwater USA
Aegis
Tier 1
Canadian Special Forces - new agreement with US
NORTHCOM - DHS
NATO - we ARE a member after all
Presumably Mexican units - part of the "NAU" afterall
National Guard units
Multi-Jurisdictional Task Forces (Local, County, State, National Guard units)
"Molon Labe" is nice but don't take things too damned far...
Let's see, if it was mandated to turn them in I'd guess the following under the direction of Dept of Homeland Security:
Blackwater USA
Aegis
Tier 1
Canadian Special Forces - new agreement with US
NORTHCOM - DHS
NATO - we ARE a member after all
Presumably Mexican units - part of the "NAU" afterall
National Guard units
Multi-Jurisdictional Task Forces (Local, County, State, National Guard units)
"Molon Labe" is nice but don't take things too damned far...
Blackwater USA did NOT refuse the job in New Orleans. Were you paying any attention?
The US has just signed a mutual agreement with Canada for just such scenarios. Where were you? I presume the same has been done with Mexico or would quickly be done since all of the three executive gov'ts are "on the same page" apparently. It's all a part of SPP/NAU.
Since we are a part of NATO one would have to be a fool to think that they would not be utilized if circumstances were bad enough to quell the violence. They'd be INVITED IN by your gov't officials or at least the President at the time.
MJTFs are used monthly in the USA (probably weekly) and few notice. They are primarily used for drugs but could easily be used for this as well.
NORTHCOM has it's own forces which can have BATF and FBI HRT and SRT support.
Hessians? You may need to pay a bit more attention to what's going on underneath our very noses.
The US has just signed a mutual agreement with Canada for just such scenarios. Where were you? I presume the same has been done with Mexico or would quickly be done since all of the three executive gov'ts are "on the same page" apparently. It's all a part of SPP/NAU.
Since we are a part of NATO one would have to be a fool to think that they would not be utilized if circumstances were bad enough to quell the violence. They'd be INVITED IN by your gov't officials or at least the President at the time.
MJTFs are used monthly in the USA (probably weekly) and few notice. They are primarily used for drugs but could easily be used for this as well.
NORTHCOM has it's own forces which can have BATF and FBI HRT and SRT support.
Hessians? You may need to pay a bit more attention to what's going on underneath our very noses.
wncchester
New member
Does the minority have the right to disarm us? NO. But, given time they expect to have the power and they will surely use it when they do. Right now it's only the laws rising from the Constitution that prevent them from doing so.
No serious constitutional scholar agrees with the liberals position on the 2nd. Those first 10 amendments were prohibitionsto stop an overreaching goverenment from taking away the God-given rights of humans. And the 2nd was NOT meant to "protect the government's right" to arm its own militia; that idea is silly on the face of it. God help us, if that take that one it will only be a few more steps to take away any of the others the "majority" can be deluded into agreeing with. Lincloln said "...you can fool all the people some of the time...." and that will be enough time for the liberals to disarm us. Look at the rising crime rates in Canada, England and Austrailia since they lost their rights to possess arms freely - why would anyone expect it to work any better here? Especially with DC as an example of disarmament.
No serious constitutional scholar agrees with the liberals position on the 2nd. Those first 10 amendments were prohibitionsto stop an overreaching goverenment from taking away the God-given rights of humans. And the 2nd was NOT meant to "protect the government's right" to arm its own militia; that idea is silly on the face of it. God help us, if that take that one it will only be a few more steps to take away any of the others the "majority" can be deluded into agreeing with. Lincloln said "...you can fool all the people some of the time...." and that will be enough time for the liberals to disarm us. Look at the rising crime rates in Canada, England and Austrailia since they lost their rights to possess arms freely - why would anyone expect it to work any better here? Especially with DC as an example of disarmament.