Force them to Amend the Constitution if they want gun control

[robertwerden]

Honestly don't know why arguments never come to that simple truth. Any law that contradicts the 2nd Amendment is inherently un-constitutional. So when I see people arguing shooting statistics and arguing if the founders intended one thing or another, I don't understand why 2nd Amendment supporters don't just demand the gun control advocates try and Amend the Constitution?

If there is truly enough support, a Constitutional amendment that changes the wording of the 2nd amendment will be the only solution for gun control advocates. There is not enough support, and the ratification will never happen, but at least ask them if they are going to legislate to do it properly.

 

[TonySutton]

If they were to amend the constitution to override the 2nd amendment, it will make secession much easier that is for sure!

 

[Acala]

The government is no longer constrained by the Constitution. It is only constrained by what the people will let it get away with. So the battle for gun control is fought using propaganda.

 

[juleswin]

Easy especially when you have 90% + of the population in support of universal background check. Or maybe they do not believe in their own polling

 

[Acala]

Easy especially when you have 90% + of the population in support of universal background check. Or maybe they do not believe in their own polling

It is so popular it is really a waste of time to even put it to a vote. So the President, who has a 105% approval rating, will issue an edict, for which there will likely be 110% approval.

 

[Pericles]

Prohibition required a constitutional amendment, and the "war on drugs" did not. Go figure.

 

[erowe1]

If I wanted to pass gun control legislation, why would I worry about amending the Constitution when I don't have to?

 

[Christian Liberty]

The fundamental point is, and I apologize to the ancaps when I throw this out here, if there is any such thing as legitimate law in this country, that's the constitution.

Granted, I DON'T agree with everything in the constitution. In my case, this typically is because some sections provide too much government. The AoC was better than the constitutiton. But right now, the constitutiton is our law.

The Law does not allow gun control. As such, enforcing gun control at the point of your gun makes you no better a person than a mafia or other criminal thug doing the same thing. Kill anyone for not complying ,and you are no better than a terrorist. Kidnap anyone for refusing to comply, and you are no better than someone who takes hostages.

If even 30% of the country were willing to argue things in such strong terms, maybe even 10%, they would probably be intimidated.

They should start a petition "People who will shoot back" and see how many signatures they get. While I have no gun, I'd sign to help the intimidation anyway.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Force them to Amend the Constitution if they want gun control

Agree. Been saying that for years. It's usually a pretty good argument to use. It tends to shut up the gun grabbers.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Agree. Been saying that for years. It's usually a pretty good argument to use. It tends to shut up the gun grabbers.

Really? This has never, ever worked for me. They always come up with excuses.

While you obviously need people like Ron Paul who "Tell the truth in love" so to speak, and people like Rand Paul* to try to work with the system, I think you need some people willing to run as fringe extremists willing to forgo winning entirely in order to tell people the truth. Feel free to compare police agents who try to take guns to terrorists, mafia members, Nazis, anything else that works, on public television. This would both make libertarians who are "Nicer" look more mainsteam, and perhaps get 15% of the population angry enough that the Federal Government might eventually have a real confrontation on its hands.

Note that I'm merely theorizing here, not really sure whether doing something like this would actually be smart.

*This is not to either confirm or deny the theory that Rand Paul is basically Ron Paul dressed up to appeal to conservatives. The reality is, whatever he may actually believe, Rand is making some compromises in order to win and fight for liberty on other fronts. While not the strategy I would choose, I understand that somebody has to do it.

 

[erowe1]

The fundamental point is, and I apologize to the ancaps when I throw this out here, if there is any such thing as legitimate law in this country, that's the constitution.

What do you base this claim on?

Granted, I DON'T agree with everything in the constitution.

If those parts are legitimate law, shouldn't you agree with them on that basis alone? Wouldn't disagreeing with legitimate law be the same as disagreeing with the truth itself?

The Law does not allow gun control. As such, enforcing gun control at the point of your gun makes you no better a person than a mafia or other criminal thug doing the same thing. Kill anyone for not complying ,and you are no better than a terrorist. Kidnap anyone for refusing to comply, and you are no better than someone who takes hostages.

Wouldn't changing the law (i.e. amending the Constitution) so that it did allow gun control also make you no better than the Mafia?

 

[Acala]

Prohibition required a constitutional amendment, and the "war on drugs" did not. Go figure.

Yup. And the NFA was disguised as a tax and didn't include an outright ban. Subsequent gun control efforts did not feel the need to hide behind the taxing power.

Once upon a time the government usually at least made an attempt to LOOK like it was within its Constitutional boundaries. Now it simply does whatever it wants. The only limit they consider is the possibility of popular uprising costing political jobs. And the population at large does not know anything about the Constitution and doesn't care. So the government is pretty safe in flagrantly ignoring it.

I rarely even bother with a Second Amendment argument with gun grabbers. They don't care. They WANT unrestrained government right up to the day it turns out badly for them and then it is too late.

 

[Christian Liberty]

What do you base this claim on?


If those parts are legitimate law, shouldn't you agree with them on that basis alone? Wouldn't disagreeing with legitimate law be the same as disagreeing with the truth itself?

I can understand that to at least some extent, it doesn't matter. But here's what I'm saying. The actual law is the constitution, in this country. IF there is any legitimate system of law in this country, that is it. I say that because the politicians and bureaucrats who claim to have authority also claim that the constitution gives them this authority, even if it really doesn't. They absolutely have no right, for instance, to pass gun control, because its not authorized in the constitution. IF there is a social contract, the constitution is it, not whatever some bureacrat dreams of.

Wouldn't changing the law (i.e. amending the Constitution) so that it did allow gun control also make you no better than the Mafia?

At least they did it with some semblance of "Due process". Its still absolutely wrong, I'd still not really have any problem with fighting against it, but at that point we actually would be outside the law, for better or worse.

 

[erowe1]

I can understand that to at least some extent, it doesn't matter. But here's what I'm saying. The actual law is the constitution, in this country.

I still don't understand. What makes that the "actual law"?

I say that because the politicians and bureaucrats who claim to have authority also claim that the constitution gives them this authority, even if it really doesn't.

Can't anybody do that? I have another Constitution around here somewhere that makes me the supreme ruler of the world, it's been legitimately ratified (according to how it legislates its own ratification). And it says that I can take whatever I want from whomever I want. Is there anything that makes my Constitution less of an "actual law" than whatever other constitution you may have in mind?

IF there is a social contract, the constitution is it

I still don't see a basis for this. One of the problems with the social contract idea is that I don't see a way to say what it is even if there is one.

At least they did it with some semblance of "Due process". Its still absolutely wrong, I'd still not really have any problem with fighting against it, but at that point we actually would be outside the law, for better or worse.

The Mafia does whatever they do with a semblance of due process, according to how they themselves define that.

 

[BethanyGrace]

Honestly don't know why arguments never come to that simple truth. Any law that contradicts the 2nd Amendment is inherently un-constitutional. So when I see people arguing shooting statistics and arguing if the founders intended one thing or another, I don't understand why 2nd Amendment supporters don't just demand the gun control advocates try and Amend the Constitution?

If there is truly enough support, a Constitutional amendment that changes the wording of the 2nd amendment will be the only solution for gun control advocates. There is not enough support, and the ratification will never happen, but at least ask them if they are going to legislate to do it properly.

Good idea! Though it is a lot more likely gun control people will attempt twist the meaning of what is already law, than actually try to legitimately change it.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I still don't understand. What makes that the "actual law"?


Can't anybody do that? I have another Constitution around here somewhere that makes me the supreme ruler of the world, it's been legitimately ratified (according to how it legislates its own ratification). And it says that I can take whatever I want from whomever I want. Is there anything that makes my Constitution less of an "actual law" than whatever other constitution you may have in mind?



I still don't see a basis for this. One of the problems with the social contract idea is that I don't see a way to say what it is even if there is one.


The Mafia does whatever they do with a semblance of due process, according to how they themselves define that.

I admit that you have a point here. While I do agree that social contract is a bit fishy anyway, I am also not an anarchist. While I think the constitution, even strictly interpreted, allows for a little too much (I don't think the Federal government should own a post office, I think it should be even harder to declare war, I think the constitution should only allow indirect taxation of states, not direct taxation of the people, I don't agree with eminent domain being allowed at all, I think the meaningless "For a well regulated milita" should be removed entirely so the liberals would just shut up [This is not a complete list]) and the modern reality allows for way too much.

I suppose you can argue all you want that the constitution is entirely illegitimate, but at least that's the document that our "leaders" swear to uphold when they go into office. And at least it was the form of government that the Founding Fathers, who were imperfect but pretty darn smart individuals, advocated for.

 

[erowe1]

I suppose you can argue all you want that the constitution is entirely illegitimate, but at least that's the document that our "leaders" swear to uphold when they go into office. And at least it was the form of government that the Founding Fathers, who were imperfect but pretty darn smart individuals, advocated for.

That much I completely agree with. They make promises never to support anything outside of the powers enumerated in the Constitution and then break their promises. You don't need to believe in the legitimacy of the Constitution to believe that it's wrong to break those promises.

 

[Pericles]

...............................

I rarely even bother with a Second Amendment argument with gun grabbers. They don't care. They WANT unrestrained government right up to the day it turns out badly for them and then it is too late.

Sometimes, I even bother to ask them what will stop the people they don't like from packing them in boxcars once their political enemies are in power. But its always no worry because that can never happen. Which tells me they intend for all of the guns to be under their control.

 

[Acala]

Sometimes, I even bother to ask them what will stop the people they don't like from packing them in boxcars once their political enemies are in power. But its always no worry because that can never happen. Which tells me they intend for all of the guns to be under their control.

It is a heady mixture of arrogance and naivete. The arrogance to think that they are so smart that they should be allowed to rule everyone else and the naivete to think that the real thugs are going to allow it.

 

[osan]

Prohibition required a constitutional amendment, and the "war on drugs" did not. Go figure.

Signs of the respective times.