Are Antis Enemies

[servantofinari]

I say shoot a gun before you say anything about them

 

[MTMilitiaman]

"Enemy" brings up the image of a person who must be destroyed, and utterly defeated. Enemies are to be hated, and not to be reasoned with.

Yep.

There is no compromise to be had here. You can not reason with these people and shouldn't even if you could. I am still relatively young, but I can remember well the feelings of confusion and alienation I felt as a twelve-year old boy reading about the newly passed AWB. Since then, I've seen these people attack literally just about every firearm created. If it was up to them Saturday Night Specials would be banned, handguns would be banned, hunting rifles and their ammunition would be banned as sniper rifles and "cop killers," respectively. "Assault Weapons" would be banned even though every piece of available evidence proves conclusively that you are more likely to be stabbed or beaten to death with bare hands than killed by a rifle of any sort. And every time American gun owners have compromised, these people have demanded more. Make no mistake, these people will not stop until your right to own a gun does not exist within the realm of law. Every inch you give them will be used only to take a mile. I know this to be true not only because they have vocalized their intent, but also because I have observed their behavior and noted that their actions speak even louder than their words.

Besides which, it should be obvious that those in the right do justice to no one by compromising. We did not fight a civil war in this country because only certain states have rights or because slavery is justifiable only within certain borders.

Would you consider someone who believed you have a right to defend yourself an enemy?

No.

Would you still hold the same view of the above person, if that same person stated that learning martial arts is an acceptable manner in which to defend yourself but not firearms?

No. My view of aforementioned individual would be reversed.

If someone told you that you had the right to believe in the deity of your choice as long as it wasn't your Lord and Savior, or that you had the right to know what you were being charged with as long as it wasn't a crime against the State, or that you had the right to speak your mind as long as it wasn't contrary to majority opinion, would you still hold them as your friend, albeit confused, or would you accept that they are, by choice, your enemy?

What measures taken against you are necessary for you to hold someone as any enemy if not the active, repeated, aggressive, and continuous assault on your ability to live your life as you choose?

But if you upped the stakes, say allowing people to own tanks, Surface to Air missiles, Apache gunships, or fighter jets, I'd wager a portion of the population on these forums would believe that is going too far.

This is an absurdly ridiculous argument and one we've all become too familiar with.

"Arms" in the context of the Bill of Rights has traditionally been regarded as small arms with regard to the intent of The Framers. Your individually protected right to "keep and bear Arms," extends to and includes all small arms. But at the time the document was written, artillery and larger weapons were always owned, maintained, and operated by the militia as a whole. And dare I state the obvious that these militias were designed to preserve a "free State" even in opposition to a tyrannical government. Requiring that militias be controlled by the federal government is contrary to the written intent of the Founding Fathers and indeed, has historically been the first step to making them impotent and useless, itself the first step in ensuring "the people" are denied the ability to oppose tyranny.

But ultimately, if enough voters passed an amendment undoing the 2nd, I'd have to give serious consideration to just simply living with the new rule. Essentially at that point they would've won, fairly and in accordance with our constitution.

Not really. The Framers believed these rights were "inalienable." They were ordained on you from birth by a power higher than government or any human institution. They can not be stripped from you, legally or morally. The Constitution of the United States in general and the Bill of Rights specifically grants rights to no one. It merely expresses a recognition of these rights by the government, and guarantees their protection. Therefore, even if the Bill of Rights was amended to not recognize your right to petition the government for a redress of grievances or to "keep and bear Arms," you'd still possess these rights and it would be your duty to oppose such restrictions by any and all means possible.

There is an extreme and contemptible amount of arrogance and ignorance in the philosophy that rights can be granted and withdrawn from a piece of paper. The Constitution is paper. The Bible is paper. Your right to own a gun or voice your opinion is no more dependent on the Constitution than your right to worship as you choose is dependent on your ownership of a Bible. If the government decided Christianity was illegal and Christians were to be fed to lions, would you stop worshipping as you choose? What is all bibles were burned in Times Square and ownership of them strictly forbidden? These are documents expressing ideas. Ideas are much harder to burn than documents.

Furthermore, this is a Democratic Republic based on majority rule with rights reserved for the minority. Therefore, the Bill of Rights does not exist to serve the majority. The right to voice your opinion is not dependent on its adherence to majority of opinion. The First Amendment exists to protect the voice of the minority. Similarly, your right to own a gun is not dependent on the acceptance of the majority. The majority has always been heard and rarely needs protection. The Bill of Rights is for the minority and therefore, the rights expressed therein are absolutely independent from popular or majority acceptable belief. The Framers absolutely believed everyone of us to have these rights regardless of how popular it was, and believed it was our duty even under pain of death to exercise these rights regardless of whether it was acceptable by majority consent or even legal by law. It was the sacrifice they made and they fully expected Americans in proceeding generations to care enough to make the same sacrifices. And therein lies the problem...

 

[ThrottleJockey]

"These are documents expressing ideas. Ideas are much harder to burn than documents. "

This makes me think of the movie "V for Vendetta" I think I'm gonna watch it tonight.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Some can be helped.

Back in law school I was one talkative S.O.B. I had lots of opinions about philosophy, politics, economics, art, what have you. Never made many conversions. BUT, I once had a long conversation with a classmate over a few about guns. I didn't get into politics or philosophy or the Constitution. I just corrected some pretty bizarre ideas he had about lethality, penetration, stopping power, etc. He came away convinced that handguns weren't such a terrible idea in a city after all, compared to hunting rifles, which he had posited as a defensive arm, and that so-called "assault rifles" were grossly misrepresented by the news media. So, fast-forward a decade and a half. My old beer buddy basically ends up in charge of, among other things, gun regulation in a certain United States jurisdiction (not a State or the District of Columbia). All those years later, he happens to recall what we talked about, that long-ago night. Some very draconian regulatory proposals failed.

We can make a difference.

But I agree, some antis are just dyed-in-the-wool turds.

 

[catspa]

Well, here's my 2 cents worth on the subject.

I find it more useful to categorize people not as friends or enemies, or even liberals or conservatives, but "does this person acknowledge their rights and responsibilities as an individual, and are they willing to deal with me as an equal?".

Among equals, differences of opinion bother me not one speck, because whether we're discussing pistols or pickup trucks, sex or religion, music or medicine, the upshot of the conversation is going to be the same - you do things your way, I'll do them mine. Equals say to each other, "I respect your ability to investigate, evaluate, and draw your own conclusions, and I expect the same in return." Some people think of equality in terms of the Golden Rule: "I don't like being coerced, so I will not coerce another. I don't like being lied to, so I will speak the truth. I appreciate when somebody helps me out, so I'll help you if I can, not because I'm obligated, but because I choose to." If we are going to conduct a transaction of some kind, you and I will negotiate to see if we can make a deal. If we make a deal, we stick to it. We look each other in the eye, shake hands and that's that.

I like dealing with equals. I go out of my way to deal with them again. I respect the rights of people who respect mine.

I know there are also people out there who see themselves as superior to me. Not in the sense of being a better marksman, mathematician, or motorcycle rider (which they very well might be) or performing a higher-paid occupation (which they very well might be). These people think they are superior in the sense that they know better than I do, and can force their preferences and ideas on me against my will. Generally speaking, I tend to resist them to some degree. Sometimes that means just going onward and doing what I do, and ignoring their demands. Sometimes it means getting in their face and backing them down. And sometimes, although it shames me to say it, I just go along enough to be left alone.

There is another group out there, made up of people who feel inferior to me. They might be frightened or resentful of me, which I don't really care about unless and until they start clamoring for somebody superior to come and control me, and then we start having problems.

But I feel most comfortable among my equals, as described above. And I'd like to think of America as a nation of equals.

If you believe, as I do, that a just government derives it's powers from the consent of the governed, it logically follows that the people cannot give the government more power than they possess, in regard to each other. For example, my neighbor may reasonably say to me, "Do not endanger me on the highway when traveling" but may not say, "Before you travel on the highway, you must ask my permission." The first is based in equality - don't endanger me, I won't endanger you, we both have much to gain by driving safely. The second is overstepping his authority, because I have as much right to travel on the highway as he does - we hold that right in common.

I also believe that there are fairly few things that government can legitimately do, and the Constitution seems to say the same, being a document of enumerated powers. Unfortunately, there are far too many people today who want to use the authority of government as a club to beat up on those they don't like. And even more unfortunately, government seems to be all to happy to oblige, often trampling citizens' rights in the process.

So when I meet a gun-control advocate, they are generally 1) unwilling to accept others as their equals, 2) unwilling to shoulder the burden of defending themselves and their loved ones, and 3) willing for government to overstep it's authority in cases where the outcome is desirable to them. They and I have little common ground, and I'm not willing to compromise on any of those points, so it's a mighty steep hill for them to climb to get to my position. Might happen, might not, but how much time am I willing to invest in their education? It's a slow process, because my personal code won't let me coerce them, only persuade and convince. Sadly, many I have met are just not worth the effort, IMHO.

However, sometimes I debate with them anyway, just to keep my mental skills sharp. Kinda selfish, I know. It might be too strong to call them enemies, but they are definitely opponents, and may someday become enemies by their actions.

Parker

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

They aren't enemies until they get in the way of my right to keep and bear arms. Passing a law or failing to remove a law that infringes my right constitutes an enemy. Attempting to disarm me constitutes an enemy. That's the short list.

Woody

 

[searcher451]

The fact that someone has a different view of the world than I do does not make him my enemy. It makes him someone who needs enlightening, or converting, or proselytizing. People from time to time on this very forum have expressed fundamental beliefs that are directly contradictory to the full intent of, say, the First Amendment, in my view; but to indicate that they are my enemy because they hold a differing view of the Constitution than I do is simply absurd. Differing views are what makes a horse race.

 

[Hk91-762mm]

I listened to Paul Helmke today On the NRA web news ----If you think you can take him to the range and change his mind your NUTS!!! he seeks only to distroy our rights In the most Incidious ways possible!!

Those who support him and his crusade to disarm me and Take my rights are definatly my ENEMIES--and I relesh the day I can engage them in warfair= On the battlefield =may the best man win --I know Ill die trying!!!
Unlike the masses on this board who have been castrated by political correctness!!!

 

[ThrottleJockey]

+10000000000000
Hk91-762mm

 

[MagnumDweeb]

Hk91-762mm

I serioulsy doubt we'll ever be forced to engage antis with hostilities, we've become too organized. The libs are panicing to label everyone and everything a terrorist, like those who backed Ron Paul who has got to be one of the nicest most patriotic individuals on earht. The more we work to strenghten the 2nd Amendment the greater our chances of never being forced to make difficult decisions others might regret us being forced to make. We should only want for peace. Anything less makes us look negative and justifies the views and opinions of the antis.

I know I painted with a rather broad brush, and I'm glad such a dialogue came from it, with a vast diversity of opinion, and many seeking to remain to only educate our less American countrymen. Not all antis are enemies. Not all can be converted to be real Americans, and that's unfortunate. But we have to tolerate them or risk a greater travesty most of us would never want. May we still seek to educate the missinformed and convert the wrongly indoctrinated. And vote pro 2nd at every turn.

 

[DHJenkins]

...I relesh the day I can engage them in warfair= On the battlefield =may the best man win --I know Ill die trying!!!...

I don't think paraphrasing Abu Hamza is all the appropriate.

 

[Spot77]

After leaving their position as Executive Director of Ceasefire Maryland, this person went shooting with a member of Maryland Shall Issue (MSI) and explained that the people they worked with at CFM were nuts, and didn't care at all about SAFETY, they had one single agenda; to disarm all of us and the consequences be damned.

 

[Restorer]

No. They are not enemies. They are American citizens who happen to hold a different view than we do. Freedom to hold a contrary opinion is fundamental to our American way of life. I don't agree with anti-gunners but they aren't "enemies", "traitors" or any other pejorative terms. The polarization of views about one another weakens us as a country. We don't have to associate with Anti's but calling them enemies is over the top.

Well said.

It's a matter of degree and intent. The guy in the workout room? Obviously an opponent regarding this issue but probably not your enemy. His stance on gun control would likely change given a physical threat to himself or his family. If you have enough forbearance to treat a jerk like a real human (admittedly difficult) you would probably find common ground on some issues.

My enemies are those who maliciously use people and events to deny my rights for their own agendas. They can do damage on a large scale. Hillary? Sold her soul to the Chinese years ago and is my enemy. Eric Holder and minions? Definitely my enemy. They beat the drum and the uneducated march.

 

[CoRoMo]

Someone who cannot be enlightened, converted, or educated, that wants to disarm me... is my enemy.

You might not call that person your enemy, but they are mine.

 

[TT]

Great stuff MTMilitiaman and catspa, thanks for your posts.

Some of the other posts, well…all I can say is it is pretty pathetic to see posters worrying about hurting the feelings of people who would very much like to throw gun owners in jail for exercising their natural right to self-defense. Or blithely describing the desire of gun-haters to send gun-owners to prison (where the average gun-owner will almost certainly be raped and beaten/shanked to death) as a ‘difference of opinion’.

 

[rbernie]

I don't think paraphrasing Abu Hamza is all the appropriate.

It doesn't help much.

This tug-of-war over the RKBA is both a multidimensional culture mismatch (e.g. rural vs. urban, independent vs. dependent, and so forth) at the ground level and a political struggle between those who wish to control and those who do not wish to be controlled at a higher level. As such, it defies simple homilies and single-threaded approaches. Chest-beating and 'bring it on' bravado may make some folk feel better, but it really doesn't accomplish much else.

I think that the culture struggle is the gray area where it's hardest to call the opposition 'an enemy', because the divide isn't ever clean-cut. There is a full spectrum of viewpoints, from the uncommitted to the true believer, on all sides of these cultural mismatches. These folk may be oppositional, but their opposition is based either upon their efforts to make their macro world resemble their preferred micro world (i.e. the bubble in which they live their day-to-day lives) or upon simple apathy.

I think that the larger political struggle between those who wish to control and those who do not wish to be subjugated is more impersonal and yet is easier to categorize as truly oppositional. Those who wish to control others for the purposes of accumulating and exercising power are far more dangerous to the RKBA than the cultural oppositionists. They commonly use the culture war to their advantage, which is why sometimes we hyperfocus on the culture war as the manifestation of our primary opposition, but their goals are further-reaching and far more dangerous than those that engage in the cultural tug-of-war. Those that wish to control others, and those that act as their lieutenants by feeding the cultural opposition, are the true enemies of the RKBA.

I believe that the most effective way to diminish the abilities of the true enemies of the RKBA (e.g. those who wish to amass power by exerting control of others) is to dimish the ranks of their foot soldiers (e.g. the cultural oppositionists).

 

[jackstinson]

But at the time the document was written, artillery and larger weapons were always owned, maintained, and operated by the militia as a whole.

That is not quite accurate. There most certainly was private ownership of artillery that time period. Although I am at a loss as to what would be considered "larger weapons" than artillery in the late 1700's. The muzzle loading cannon and/or mortar were THE state of the art weapon in the 1700's...unless you built a Puckle Gun. Merchant ships carried cannon for a long time after the 2nd ammendment.
Even today, private ownership of cartridge artillery is still perfectly legal, if you pay the $200 tax and can afford the ammo.
And anyone can legally mail order a replica late 1700's "state of the art" artillery piece, have it shipped to their front porch, then shoot it all they want.
Why some guy even built a replica Puckle gun in the 1980's just for fun.

 

[Telumehtar]

"Arms" in the context of the Bill of Rights has traditionally been regarded as small arms with regard to the intent of The Framers. Your individually protected right to "keep and bear Arms," extends to and includes all small arms. But at the time the document was written, artillery and larger weapons were always owned, maintained, and operated by the militia as a whole.

Your ignorance of history I believe is coloring your perspective. Fact of the matter, private individuals in the colonies, did own artillery and cannon. In fact one of the more common areas where private individuals owned such was on Merchant vessels who had the means, and willingness to use cannon to repel pirates. In fact it was private ownership of these weapons, that lead to the US issuing Letters of Marque and essentially allowed us to have a Mercenary Navy(Privateers) during the early years of the Union.

Not really. The Framers believed these rights were "inalienable." They were ordained on you from birth by a power higher than government or any human institution. They can not be stripped from you, legally or morally. The Constitution of the United States in general and the Bill of Rights specifically grants rights to no one. It merely expresses a recognition of these rights by the government, and guarantees their protection. Therefore, even if the Bill of Rights was amended to not recognize your right to petition the government for a redress of grievances or to "keep and bear Arms," you'd still possess these rights and it would be your duty to oppose such restrictions by any and all means possible.

True rights are supposed to be inalienable, however that doesn't mean they can't be stripped from you, nor does it mean, that you can't contract them away.

The Bill of Rights was established to prevent the State from infringing on those rights, however we can, and in fact do, sacrifice our rights in exchange for benefits provided by the government, and ultimately this is where passing Amendments to the Constitution comes in. An amendment, passed by the people, revoking a protection of rights is a signal that the people are contracting with the government an exchange of a right in return for something.

Now granted I think it would be UTTERLY stupid for us to ever do this, but the ability for such an action is there, and if enough people decided to back it, we could sell our Rights to the government. Personally I think it would amount to giving up something for nothing, but then people have been trading rights for the illusion of security for the last 7 years too, so I don't exactly hold the general wisdom of our population in high regard.

This is an absurdly ridiculous argument and one we've all become too familiar with.

Why is it ridiculous? People can in fact own and operate artillery now. And where do you draw the line in determining what is or is not a small arm? Is a hand held Grenade launcher a small arm(arguably more destructive than the cannon of old)? Is a tripod mortar? What about mounted heavy machine guns? Or man portable gatling guns? What if in the not to distant future a hand held weapon with the destrucive power of a suit case nuke is developed?

What precisely is a small arm? We know what one looks like today, because we have certain conceptions about what is or is not man portable, but the line gets blurry real quick when our propensity for creating destructive devices on an ever smaller scale finally makes mass destruction a hand held device.

So again, where do you draw the line in the sand? Having a machine gun is probably fine with most folks on these forums. If they should create one, would having a Rocket Propelled Shoulder fired nuke be an acceptable risk for private citizens to be allowed to own? Somewhere there is a line, and it's drawn based upon how much destructive power We the people as a collective can entrust to the people as individuals.

 

[BENELLIMONTE]

Emphatically YES. They are trying to circumvent the constitution in multiple ways. They are my ENEMIES!

 

[searcher451]

This very thread is a proof against the entire premise. We are all here because we enjoy guns and the Second Amendment and the RTKBA and everything that is associated with it. Yet note that all of us don't agree on this topic. Does that make the folks who disagree with me here my enemy? Are the fracture lines really that deep between not only those who get it and those who don't, but also between those who don't get it as much as you or I get it?

 

[catspa]

Telumehtar:True rights are supposed to be inalienable, however that doesn't mean they can't be stripped from you, nor does it mean, that you can't contract them away.

The Bill of Rights was established to prevent the State from infringing on those rights, however we can, and in fact do, sacrifice our rights in exchange for benefits provided by the government, and ultimately this is where passing Amendments to the Constitution comes in. An amendment, passed by the people, revoking a protection of rights is a signal that the people are contracting with the government an exchange of a right in return for something.

Now granted I think it would be UTTERLY stupid for us to ever do this, but the ability for such an action is there, and if enough people decided to back it, we could sell our Rights to the government. Personally I think it would amount to giving up something for nothing, but then people have been trading rights for the illusion of security for the last 7 years too, so I don't exactly hold the general wisdom of our population in high regard.


Interesting point you raise there. Let's consider a person's right to vote as an example.

Each American, in order to exercise their voting right, must register, correct? You could make the argument that without registration, voting wouldn't be possible in any meaningful sense, because we need to make sure that each voter only votes once and that each vote is properly recorded. So once a voter is registered, it is still within the discretion of that voter whether or not to actually cast their vote.

We often assume that each voter will base their decision on reason and logic, on their informed opinion and evaluation of the candidates or measures on the ballot. It doesn't always happen, but at least we think it should, that each voter chooses what they believe in, and the majority position "wins". Suppose, however, that there is an eligible voter who just doesn't care which party or candidate is chosen. Let's further suppose that somebody, perhaps a major political party, finds this person and says, "Your vote may not mean anything to you, but it does to me. I'll give you $100 for it. Go down and register, sign over your vote to me, and I will decide for you in every future election. Go in and vote the way I tell you, and when you come out, I'll be there with the Franklin. Just sign this contract, and that's what we'll do."

So the apathetic person signs up, easiest hunnert bucks ever. As you observed, it is utterly stupid of them, but they have the right to do it. We establish here that an individual has the ability to contract away their right to vote. But it is a long step from there to the idea that that person, or any group of persons, can contract away another's right to vote.

In the same way, the 2A right is an individual right. The Constitution recognizes it to each American. If we Americans are equals, none of us has the power to contract away rights for anyone but ourselves. Any pretension toward doing so is and should be null and void as soon as it exists. I cannot see the legitimacy of "the collective people" negating the rights of "the individual people" in the way you suggest.

In fact, I'm not sure I even acknowledge the standing of "the collective people" as an entity. People are individuals, and no matter what the subject of discussion, some will be entirely opposed to the opinion of others. How can you say what the collective opinion is when individuals differ so widely? Only by espousing one view and rejecting another, upon which it's no longer "collective" but one group commandeering the power and silencing the others.

Constitutional amendments, as I understand, are not approved by the people but ratified by the states. That makes sense to me, as the Constitution itself is an agreement between the states to assign some of their authority (derived from the consent of their citizens) to a central (federal) government in the first place. The delegates represented their respective states, and the input of the people as individuals was very indirect if it was considered at all. But IMHO, an amendment ratified by the states that negated the rights of individual Americans would be null and void as well. If my fellow citizens don't possess the power to negate my rights individually, how do they gain that power by forming a state government and ratifying an agreement with other state governments?

The way I see it, the leaders of a group can certainly make decisions that
direct the actions of group members, but they have no authority outside the group. So if a person chooses to sign up for a program, public or private, that offers to provide for their personal defense on the condition that they divest themselves of personal weapons, for example, they are certainly free to do so. What they cannot do is obligate me to accept the same terms. I don't accept the idea that a majority, even an overwhelming majority, has the power to deny my Constitutional rights. They are mine as an individual, and not subject to group control. Of course it follows that each person may sell off as many of his/her rights to the government as he/she pleases. Selling the rights of another citizen off to the government, or any other entity? That's crossing the line, and now the person is my enemy, and the enemy of my liberties.

Parker

 

[Telumehtar]

Let's consider a person's right to vote as an example.

It's funny that you would pick the "right to vote" as the basis of your argument, because on it's face your support for such a notion is wrong if you consider the founder's interpretation of the Franchise to vote.

Specifically they did not see voting as a inalienable human Right. They in fact limited voting previleges to White Male Landowners. Now the first two attributes were I believe cultural hang overs of having White Males be the dominant ruling class in Europe. Blacks and Indians were considered, at the time, sub-human so that is why they had no Rights, however Women or non-landowning men were considered human and privy to all the inalienable Rights and yet they did not gain the "right" to Vote.

However the Landowner attribute had a very specific purpose behind it. The founders believed that a voter could not be trusted with a vote unless they had tangible interests to protect in which the success of the nation was tied directly to the success of themselves(i.e. they attempted to tie self interest(greed) to common interest(the nations well being). Land ownership was the basis upon which they believed a vested interest could be determined.

The whole idea was to prevent non-landowners from voting themselves various favors from the government (gee the wisdom there when looked at in the light of today's welfare state seems to be a down right premonition).

So I think in this case, your understanding of inalienable rights (at least from the view point of the founders) is faulty.

Now I understand the point you are trying to make that the creator bestowed, or otherwise humans have Natural Rights imbued to them, and that supposedly they can't be simply wiped away by a majority (even a vast 2/3rds one as needed for amendments). But we do indeed strip or deny various rights from Criminals, the mentally impaired, children, military personnel, and various other categories of people. This means we have all sorts of examples where either the collective people strip rights from individuals(criminals etc), or individuals suspend or trade their Rights in exchange for some gain or willing sacrifice(military personnel).

But the fact of the matter is the Constitution is, as a document, precisely that which I am describing but with a scope encompassing all citizens of the Union. It is a social contract between the People and the government outlining what Rights the people are suspending in order to form a government in which a more perfect Union is formed. The founders believed that in order to create something better, bigger, and more capable of withstanding the world pressures of the day, that a trade of Rights in exchange for mutual security, collective diplomacy, regulation of fair trade between the colonies(soon to be states), and with other nations that a contract was required that would serve as the Framework of the relationship between the People and the government.

Constitutional amendments, as I understand, are not approved by the people but ratified by the states. That makes sense to me, as the Constitution itself is an agreement between the states to assign some of their authority (derived from the consent of their citizens) to a central (federal) government in the first place.

And they believed that this contract could be further altered (including the additional succession of Rights on the behalf of the people) should 2/3rds of the people ratify an amendment to do so. And yes I believe you are correct that 2/3rds of the states have to ratify it, but the states are acting as representatives of the people. And it is why in many states should an amendment be under consideration, there is usually a general election within each state so that they have a direct count of the voters who are for/against it.

Anyhow, that is why ultimately the ban on alchohol was Constitutional(stupid but constitutional). One could certainly argue that one should have the right to drink. But when enough people believe that trading that Right in exchange for something else (I'm guessing the prohibitionists thought it would be security and stability), that they can pass an amendment, then they have legitimately suspended that Right for everyone, as in accordance with the structure of the Constitution.

It is ultimately why I am pissed with the Anti-gun movement. You want to ban guns... fine. But have the balls to do it the correct way and pass an amendment. Instead they misuse our already severely abused Federal system to force laws down our throats which are unconstitutional IMHO(at least until they really can pass an amendment).

And keep in mind, from a practical stand point, I doubt you and I are all that far apart on our views of things, but the nuances of Rights, and their permenance is where I think a lot of Rights activists(gun, human, free speech, etc) get it wrong. They are only permenant so long as the People desire to hold onto them.

And that ultimately is the beauty behind the Right protected by the 2nd. Should a minority not want to give up this right, it the one right in which the minority, should they have the willingness to fight for it, can take it back from the majority... by force.

 

[Joe Demko]

The whole idea was to prevent non-landowners from voting themselves various favors from the government (gee the wisdom there when looked at in the light of today's welfare state seems to be a down right premonition).

So, instead they went with a system that allowed land owners to vote themselves various favors from the government. I fail to see why that is inherently superior.

 

[Landor]

I think anti gun is a default. Guns scare people and people are anti scare if that makes sense so by default they are anti gun. The person that quotes the Brady campaign or Obama on guns is anti gun. The person that just says they hate guns for whatever reason is just unsure. They are only anti gun when they are safe. There are no anti gun people when they are about to become a victim.

 

[rscalzo]

They not only think that the police have a LEGAL duty to protect them, but that contrary to all reason and experience that they will

Your simplistic view may serve your needs but you seem to ignore the state's requirement to do just that.. Failure to act in many cases will result in criminal charges.