Emotion aside, the fact remains that the people are free to choose whether to retain the right to an armed citizenry, they are free to pursue change, and to do so is not subversive, but an expression of their rights as a free people to choose the rules of society.
Nonsense. The thread is specific to the US context, US rights, and US law. My circumstances are irrelevant to the topic. Perhaps your enquiry is in order to pursue a deflection?
Not if the means for that removal (legal amendment) are means specifically provided for by the Constitution. That is called “following the Constitution”.
Who has suggested doing it that way?
Rau, in this post.. I don’t think anyone here is suggesting illegally changing the law or outright ignoring it.
If the change to the Constitution was actually accomplished in this way, I suspect that no one would have a problem with it.
Here’s the situation as I see it (I’m late to getting on this thread, maybe this has been mentioned already):
Using the amendment process by the majority in order to undermine and confiscate a human and civil right protected by the Bill of Rights is an attempt to subvert a right. It is subversive
And it would never be everybody since the government would not give up gu s, political leaders would not give up theirs or the bodyguards that have them. And all you have to do is look at Paris, under some of the toughest gun restrictions, to see that everybody doesn’t even include the bad guys. Gun restrictions always only apply to civilian law abiding citizens.
Well, politicians always make exceptions for themselves to the things they pass “for the good of the citizens.”
I’d like to see a Constitutional amendment that prevents that.Well, politicians always make exceptions for themselves to the things they pass “for the good of the citizens.”
It is not subversive of the Constitution. You may claim it is subversive to Natural Law, but that is a different argument. I claim the right to have a gun is not a human right established by Natural Law. It is only a right defined by the Constitution of one country that represents only 4% of the world’s population. The other 96% do not have such a constitutional right. It is hard to make the case that it is Natural Law when that law is recognized by so few governments.
It is subversive of the human and civil right to keep and bear arms. Many others to in the world lack other basic civil rights. That doesn’t mean we do not have an inherent right to them.
Yes, but that “right” is arbitrary, except for the fact that it is in the Constitution. If it were not in the Constitution, it would be a right like the right to build a garage within 2 feet of the property line - totally arbitrary and subject to revision or cancellation.
No, but you have not proven that we **do **have an inherent right to them.
That is fine. And I am not overly impressed by something just because it is in the Constitution. The Constitution also sets rules on how the legislature should be composed of a Senate and a House of Representatives. I would not call that arrangement “inherent” either.
It is not arbitrary in the United States. And we didn’t get that view on our own. The colonists knew that to be a right as British citizens, and fought against attempts to confiscate them. They didn’t need the constitution-to-come-later to know they had that right. There is nothing arbitrary about it.