[extropy-chat] Guns--generalized

[Mike Lorrey]

--- Damien Broderick <thespike at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Spike reckons:
> 
> > In this country, gun ownership is our
> > right, so the fed cannot legally challenge it in any
> > case.  Were the fed to attempt to do so, we would be
> > forced to conclude that our legal constitutional
> > government had been overthrown, and would be obligated
> > to take up arms against it
> 
> I don't know how this legal constitution caper works (being a
> benighted
> Aussie), but a few questions spring to mind. Suppose slavery had been
> enshrined from the outset in the Constitution, or suppose that women
> had been forbidden suffrage. Would it not be permitted to change
these
> rights and exclusions? 

If you can get a supermajority of both congress and the states to vote
for a constitutional amendment, then you can amend the constitution, as
has been done with slavery and womens suffrage. Given that 75%+ of
Americans believe in an individual right to keep and bear arms, it
ain't bloodly likely to happen any time soon. Given also that it took a
civil war in addition to a constitutional amendment to get rid of
slavery, I doubt very much that you'd succeed with a constitutional gun
ban without a similar civil war. 

There are several other hurdles to overcome. Firstly, NH never lost its
constitutional right to revolt and seceed. Secondly, Texas retains the
right to break up into 5 separate states if it so decides to, in order
to gain leverage in the Senate (i.e. 5 states x 2 Senators per state =
10 Senate seats rather than just 2 as it now has), should such an
un-American amendment come to a vote. Thirdly, you'd have to overcome
the fact that most states have a right to bear arms in their own state
constitution. 

Fourthly, you'd have to deal with the fact that the federal government
is not a sovereign entity. Its authority is entirely delegated to it by
the people. No part of the Constitution alienates individuals from
their rights, amendments simply recognise that certain pre-existant
individual rights are not to be violated by the government. Any
amendment that sought to restrain individual rights such as the first
or second amendments would most certainly result in a very violent
reaction from a large portion of the citizenry.

You do not see such a reaction to mere laws like the Patriot Act
because most citizens recognise that this law is applied only to
non-Americans and/or Americans allied with foreign fasco-terrorist
groups. The population isn't ready to oppose it because their own ox is
not being gored, as evidenced by the fact that surveys show that 80%+
of african americans support racial profiling when it is applied to
arabs or other foreign muslims. We were far closer to armed
insurrection here in the US when the Clinton WHite House and its
supporters waged an undeclared war on Redneck-Americans.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/