Citizens with guns

The Constitution and the rights guaranteed by it are laws that were voted on. It had to be ratified by representatives of states. It can also be changed, as it has been 27 times. The right to keep and bear arms, along with every other right guaranteed by the Constitution, is not above reproach. It can be denied at any time as long as the proper procedure is followed to change it.

There seems to be a prevailing misunderstanding about how our democratic republic works on a state and federal level. People elect their representatives and executives. The representatives write the laws. The executives sign the laws making them enforceable. The courts then enforce the laws. The elected government changes with each election. The laws can be rewritten. The courts can rule them unconstitutional.

All of this process and what comes out of it is reflective of the people doing the voting. The Constitution only guarantees rights that the people have written into it. It is not some holy document handed down from on high that cannot be impeached. It was, and continues to be, written by the people through the representatives and executives we elect.

I understand that many have given life and limb upholding a sworn oath to support and defend our Constitution, but that does not change what it actually says. It outlines very clearly in Article Five how it can be amended and the process needed to do so.

At one point in our history members of our military and others who took that oath were supporting and defending a Constitution that was amended to make alcohol illegal. Then it was amended back. It could be amended again tomorrow.

As a voter, I do have the right to express my opinion at the ballot box. If enough other voters agree with me, we do then have the right to take choices away from others via laws written and passed by those we elected. This right of the majority of voters to take choices away from a minority of voters is exactly what the Constitution protects. That's why it was written in the first place, and that is why it was revolutionary for its time. It protects the majority from being under the rule of a small minority (or king, as it was at the time), and in doing so establishes a democratic form of government. Living under this form of government means your fellow citizens can decide to take choices away from you. That is why it is paramount that these decisions are not motivated by fear or bigotry, but reason.

Democracy protects the majority. It cuts both ways depending on which side you are on, but regardless of our opinions, we are obligated as citizens to follow current laws until we can use the democratic process to change them. If you choose not to, you must accept the consequences.

The rights are not from on high and sacred? Funny those that founded the United States and wrote that document would disagree if you read what they have written. Those our only rights? Funny Amendment ten says you are wrong.
The statement you made was the exact reason that people were afraid to put in the bill of rights in the first place. They feared that people would take those rights as our only rights and things that can be given or taken by the stroke of a pen.
By your statement you would accept the rules of Mao or Pol Pot or any dictator that has abused and enslaved their fellow man throughout history. Because most tyrants actions were voted on and legal. Sorry but liberty is not something up for a vote. Unlike the people of WW2 I dont think its cool to send my fellow man to camps and make them less then human because most people are cool with it.

MadHatter wrote: Unlike the people of WW2 I dont think its cool to send my fellow man to camps and make them less then human because most people are cool with it.

I don't think Senan was suggesting any such thing. From what I got he's just saying that all the parts of the Constitution were, in fact, voted on and they can be voted on again. Many parts of it won't be, in my opinion, and the Bill of Rights is among those parts. The Constitution was designed to be changeable, it was designed that way so that when mistakes were made by mortal men they could later be remedied.

Goken wrote:

MadHatter wrote: Unlike the people of WW2 I dont think its cool to send my fellow man to camps and make them less then human because most people are cool with it.

I don't think Senan was suggesting any such thing. From what I got he's just saying that all the parts of the Constitution were, in fact, voted on and they can be voted on again. Many parts of it won't be, in my opinion, and the Bill of Rights is among those parts. The Constitution was designed to be changeable, it was designed that way so that when mistakes were made by mortal men they could later be remedied.

The people of the US were fine with putting the Japanese in camps here. That is not something that should have ever happened. (but it is what happens when you let people vote on liberty) Further if we look at the founding document it lists we are born with certain INALIENABLE rights given by our creator. I think they made it very clear that such rights are sacred gifts from some sort of higher power. (however you choose to see it)

MadHatter wrote:

Goken wrote:

MadHatter wrote: Unlike the people of WW2 I dont think its cool to send my fellow man to camps and make them less then human because most people are cool with it.

I don't think Senan was suggesting any such thing. From what I got he's just saying that all the parts of the Constitution were, in fact, voted on and they can be voted on again. Many parts of it won't be, in my opinion, and the Bill of Rights is among those parts. The Constitution was designed to be changeable, it was designed that way so that when mistakes were made by mortal men they could later be remedied.

The people of the US were fine with putting the Japanese in camps here. That is not something that should have ever happened. (but it is what happens when you let people vote on liberty) Further if we look at the founding document it lists we are born with certain INALIENABLE rights given by our creator. I think they made it very clear that such rights are sacred gifts from some sort of higher power. (however you choose to see it)

First of all, it most certainly should never have happened and I will personally fight tooth and nail to make sure it doesn't happen again. (something I fear might if the current trend of Muslim fearing continues). Secondly, the only things it states are inalienable are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which are pretty vague and are actually in the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution.

But at this point I feel like I'm arguing with you when I'm not meaning to. :laugh:

I'm just saying that the Constitution is made to be changed and those changes voted upon.

Goken wrote:

MadHatter wrote:

Goken wrote:

MadHatter wrote: Unlike the people of WW2 I dont think its cool to send my fellow man to camps and make them less then human because most people are cool with it.

I don't think Senan was suggesting any such thing. From what I got he's just saying that all the parts of the Constitution were, in fact, voted on and they can be voted on again. Many parts of it won't be, in my opinion, and the Bill of Rights is among those parts. The Constitution was designed to be changeable, it was designed that way so that when mistakes were made by mortal men they could later be remedied.

The people of the US were fine with putting the Japanese in camps here. That is not something that should have ever happened. (but it is what happens when you let people vote on liberty) Further if we look at the founding document it lists we are born with certain INALIENABLE rights given by our creator. I think they made it very clear that such rights are sacred gifts from some sort of higher power. (however you choose to see it)

First of all, it most certainly should never have happened and I will personally fight tooth and nail to make sure it doesn't happen again. (something I fear might if the current trend of Muslim fearing continues). Secondly, the only things it states are inalienable are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which are pretty vague and are actually in the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution.

But at this point I feel like I'm arguing with you when I'm not meaning to. :laugh:

I'm just saying that the Constitution is made to be changed and those changes voted upon.

My point was that in our founding Documents which are: The Deceleration of Independence, the articles of Confederation, and The Federal and State Constitutions we see traces of the the founding fathers idea of sacred rights.( one could even argue the Federalist and Anti Federalist papers to a degree) That they believed that rights were not granted by but protected from the government and mob rule. Besides tossing about and hashing out meaning is not arguing.

I just try to be a good example of a citizen that owns guns.

In 36 years I have found it exceedingly easy not to shoot another person, or myself.

For those that will be bad examples, well, they would be using anything as such.

Timothy McVeigh did not use a gun.

9/11 was not pulled off with a gun, but box cutters and planes.

Ted Kisinsky.

Charles Manson. (He used people,and words.)

Those that are preparing to harm others,will.

Change the laws, and those like me will abide.

Those mentioned above,will not.

What law, what vote, do you think will stay their,and others like them hand?

With all due respect, MadHatter, I'm not sure you read what I wrote. I'm speaking of the democratic republic created by the Constitution of the United States. There is no mention of foreign dictatorships or WWII Germany. Our Constitution does not apply to them.

And I think you are confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration speaks of the "Creator" and "Nature's God". It sites "unalienable rights" and the grievances with England. Thomas Jefferson clearly did believe that certain rights were sacred or "from on high".

The Constitution does not say this anywhere. In fact, it protects the right of people to believe their is no god or anything sacred at all. The purpose of the Constitution is laid out from the very beginning.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It is a document that establishes the U.S. government. It is a recipe, if you will. It describes the duties and responsibilities of the government including how the laws governing the people are to come about and be enforced. It also describes how they can be changed. It seeks to "secure the Blessings of Liberty", but it does not define what that liberty is or who is blessing it upon us. That was on purpose. By being vague, it allows the definition of "liberty" to be determined by the people over time and it does not suggest that this liberty is bestowed by any specific entity.

I agree with Steamboat that the Bill of Rights are not likely to ever be amended, but that does not mean that they can't be. The 10th Amendment exists so that States have the authority to address any rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. That's why gun control laws are different in every state and it is why Californians have the right to make certain weapons, clips and ammunition illegal. The Constitution may protect your right to keep and bear arms, but it also protects the right of Californians to deiced which arms you can keep and when and where you are allowed to bear them. The document truly is ingenious when you consider it this way.

Despite what you choose to believe, your liberty does not come at the expense of mine, or anyone else's. We decide on what liberties are protected by our government via the democratic process established and described in the Constitution. Liberty is something up for a vote, at least so much as in deciding how much liberty we are willing to give each other. That's why women are allowed to vote now.

I was refering to the detainment of the Japanese American citizens by the US without trial or did we forget that happened? Further the tenth amendment states that the powers NOT given to the federal government are granted to the states and the PEOPLE the powers given to the states are those granted by their state constitutions. Most often BOTH the state and federal constitutions have laws that say you CANNOT infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. So no they do not have the right to enact those laws.
To close what you are saying is that you are ok with slavery or genocide if voted upon. Because some how that is ok if enough people voted on it. Or if tomorrow Congress passed the law that Jediism is illegal would you obey? Hey by the logic presented we should not even be outside of British rule because they voted on all the things that caused us to break from them. If rights are voted on then we have NO rights they are just privileges at the whim of those with the most guns.

Khaos,
You have hit upon the most frustrating part of human nature. Despite our best intentions and thousands of years of practice, we have yet to figure out a way to change our true nature. Bad people will do bad things. They will use any and every tool available to them to do so. There is no law that could "stay the hand" of someone hellbent on achieving something.

However, good people will do good things and they will use any and every tool available to them as well. In this case, it is those laws that they are attempting to use. Will it stop a terrorist in the future from using an AK-47 with a huge clip? Maybe not. Will it make some people feel better because they are trying to do something to stop it? Probably.

But what is "good" and what is "bad"? This is what must be decided by each society, and Americans do it with a government built according to instructions set forth in our Constitution. It ain't perfect. It might even be useless. Some of us like it anyway.