I should preface this entire post by saying I AM ANTI-GUN CONTROL. Also, almost every reference I make here is to federal law, not state law. Make sure to take that into consideration.
You state that you are anti-gun-control, but yet you have also stated in past posts that you are okay with what “you consider reasonable measures” like the executive orders that Obama signed applying more restriction on the ability to purchase a gun (which is gun control, regardless how you would like to dumb it down). And this is really where I normally have major differences with people regarding gun control. I read the constitution and take it at its face value, I don’t attempt to twist it, and I don’t try to discover the meanings of the time. I take it for the plain English it was written in. IMO, Gun control of any kind, is unconstitutional. As long as the second amendment reads the way it does, any measure to restrict gun ownership is in fact going against the wording of the 2A.
The second amendment is just that - a constitutional amendment.
Yes it is the second amendment in the bill of rights that guarantees Americans rights (not privileges, check the definition out between the two) that are supposed to restrict the federal government in it capacity to remove or restrict such rights of the people (i.e. the citizens of the United States of America).
How are laws "bypassing" the constitution? You're going to need to be more specific.
The constitution and its amendments are deliberately vague, and issues pertaining to them need to be codified by laws and court rulings. Lawmakers in 1938, for example, realized that it would be harmful to the public good if firearm sales were completely unregulated, and if felons were allowed to possess firearms. Thus, they passed the Federal Firearms Act, which (among other things) created FFLs. Is that infringing on your right to keep and bear arms? No. It IS a measure of control over who can sell them, but it in no way violates the letter or spirit of the second amendment. These laws are passed because the constitution and its amendments don't always give us hard and fast rules over how to govern. I mean, look at how many first amendment restrictions there are! I would argue that many of them, like prohibition against libel and slander, are in the public interest. Are there some laws that try to restrict other facets of gun ownership? Sure there are. The passage of the LEO Safety act of 1986 made the sale of armor-piercing ammunition illegal. Is that infringing on the right to keep and bear arms? No. Does it prevent you from having certain ammunition? Yes. Ammunition, however, is not a constitutionally protected right. These are things you need to consider when you say that laws are "circumventing a constitutionally protected right."
Before you bring the up the AWB of 1994, I'm totally with you. That law was bogus and unconstitutional as FUCK.
The Bill of Rights or 1-10 amendments are defined as rights of the people and a measure to restrict the government’s power over the people. So how is it that the very amendments that are supposed to restrict the government’s power and guarantee rights to the people can be restricted by law or other means? No where in the constitution is the federal government in any three branches, given powers to make such laws. That is simply a fact, regardless of the stupidity that has transpired over the past 150 years, the reality is that the federal government does not have the powers to make such restrictions. It’s not because the constitution is vague as you imply, it is because the restrictions upon the federal government is simple (i.e. see these here ten amendments that we made the bill of rights, it restricts your powers federal government, you can’t fuck with these rights of the people). As for the constitution giving hard and fast rules, it is not supposed to, it is supposed to provide a limited federal government, limited as in limited in power over the people…
Getting into your opinion that the gun control laws of the past do not infringe the right to keep and bear arms. I could not disagree with you more here, gun control in our history has never been about restricting the ownership, just restricting the level of fire-power. These ideas go back to the civil war and the reconstruction era. The federal government by way of the civil war, learned that allowing the people to have the same level of fire-power as the federal government puts the federal government at risk. Since the reconstruction period, gun control has been a hot topic. Where most of your first laws restricting ownership and fire-power started were actually in the southern states that were under reconstruction. And this is where a lot of people who look at the history fail to make important links, and normally simply apply the “racist southerners democrats didn’t want slaves having guns” reasoning. The truth is that the federal government, during the passing of state level laws, had puppet governments placed in the southern states. These were not the local former slave owners, these were normally military officers, and selected politicians, who were sent to reshape the south, and restrict and govern these states into what the federal government wanted. I recommend you read about it, it’s pretty eye opening.
Why did the Federal government go this route? Because they could not amend the constitution on a national level to change the 2A. They did not have the support of 2/3rds of the states, yes even the northern states. So they went around it.
If you look at it holistically, the government DOES work. It does not work with great efficiency, nor does it work the way you or I want it to some of the time, but laws still get passed, court cases are ruled on, and things happen. I can understand how it would be hard to have a positive impression of government when all we hear about is how the sky is falling, but if you're like me and you follow politics pretty closely, you'll see that's there's more happening than the headlines would have you believe. And of course politicians have agendas! They wouldn't be representing their constituencies if they didn't have a plan when they came into office. I would be highly suspicious of any politician who claimed he or she didn't have an agenda upon getting into office. But plotting and politicking is not just about idealism. It's about being able to give and take, and to be able to use political capital when you have it. The democrats have not had the political capital to pass any gun control measures for years now. I posted this back in November, but it bears repeating:
Do you know how many federal gun laws have passed under the Obama administration? Two. One allowed people to carry in national parks, and another allows them to carry on Amtrak trains. A cursory glance at govtrack.us shows that the docket is quite full of proposed gun control measures, including Feinstein's backalley abortion of an AWB that thankfully will never see the light of day. So yes, I acknowledge that the President and Democrats want gun control. Do I think they can get it? No. Not only no, but fuck no. If they couldn't get it done after Sandy Hook, they sure as hell aren't going to get it done before 2015 rolls around and the 113th congress dumps the docket.
I guess we will have to wait and see where our different predictions take us. I am confident that the Obama administration will push a gun control bill (that will make Clinton’s look silly) directly after the 2014 elections. I also believe it with probably have the best chance in passing.
Also, what do you mean "corrupted by agendas that have been laid out over centuries of careful planning and organization"? That's....I don't even know what that is.
This post is getting long enough as it is. If you really, truly believe that this government and the people elected to run it, are doing it for their constituents and not the big corporation lobbyist, and political party agendas, than there is nothing I can really type out here to explain it to you. I again recommend you do some research on the many issues, but primarily the gun control issue.
Like I said before, I think that he WANTS to, but I don't think he is GOING to. I think that he realizes that federal gun control is a fool's errand, and is more likely to lose his party congressional seats than gain anything worthwhile.
We will see.
You're saying a bunch of different things here so let me address them one by one. The Democrats want to regulate guns, yes. Why? I don't know. They're scary (to them). What do you mean by "mainly any gun that possess a matching fire power to any civil authority"? Are you implying that democrats want to take away guns so that citizens can't fight back? If that's your argument, I find that highly specious and would like to see how you arrived at that conclusion.
Because the gun control laws on the books are all in place to restrict your ability to fight the government. They use the reduction in crime as a means, but the reality is it has little to no effect on the criminal elements, but 100% effect on the normally law abiding people. Thus if they can make you a criminal before you can obtain the fire-power to fight the government, they can control the people at all levels.
Look I understand you may think that is just crazy shit, but the reality is that is in fact what has happened and again, these ideologies come from as far back as the civil war, and more currently the beginning of the 20th century where communism, and socialism started to take roots around the world, to include the USA.
As to your amendment question: 1) Nobody except a bunch of fringe liberals (who are conveniently in the minority right now) wants a sweeping gun ban, 2) The federal government doesn't work on a referendum system so "letting the people decide" is not a simple option, we "let the people decide" by holding free and fair elections for state and federal representatives.
I give Obama credit because he understands that Sandy Hook was his last chance to get any sort of gun control legislation passed. He understands that the topic is deeply unpopular, and though I'm sure that a lot of you guys like to think he's a blind ideologue (which is true in some cases), he's still a politician and he knows when he faces a losing proposition. That's the crux of it all: he knows that gun control is a zero-sum game for him and the party. Any paltry legislative victory he might get will ultimately hurt the party, so I believe he will not risk it.
As far as the supreme court goes, the bench rulings from the last ten years or so have been great for gun owners. In DC vs Heller and McDonald vs Chicago, the Supreme Court finally incorporated that second amendment, and asserted that it was an individual right instead of state right. I think it's been a great decade for pro-gun Supreme Court rulings.
I think the rest of us should take care not to conflate the word "unconstitutional" with "immoral". They are two separate words and have two different meanings. As such, something can be immoral while also not being unconstitutional. Murder, for instance, is never mentioned in the constitution. While it is immoral, it is not unconstitutional.
Unless a thing is specifically mentioned in the constitution, its amendments, or constitutional case law, it is likely not unconstitutional. Just something to consider.
