3 ms·

Nothing. It's one of fundamental rights of an American. It's one of the power granted to the people by the Constitution. Asking the people to give up this po

Nothing. It's one of fundamental rights of an American. It's one of the power granted to the people by the Constitution. Asking the people to give up this power is as idiotic as asking Congress to give up its power. Also of note, the Constitution specifically DENIED the government the power to outright ban guns. The government can regulate it, but the government can not outright ban it. >A well regulated militia... Meaning the government can regulate arms. >...arms shall not be infringed. Meaning the government can not outright ban arms.

maxerickson 10y ago
There's calls right here in this discussion to alter the constitution. It's not sacrosanct. So it's not impossible to regulate guns in a way that would not be allowed under today's constitution, just difficult. edit: I see you've discussed this below. Interesting though that gun owners rising up to protect themselves from the government wouldn't be constitutional (it would be done under the authority of the gun, not under the authority of the Constitution).
- LyndsySimon 10y ago
  > it would be done under the authority of the gun, not under the authority of the Constitution It would be done under the authority of "the People" - the same authority through which the US Constitution was enacted (or so the logic goes) Note that the Constitution does not "grant" a right to arms, but recognizes a pre-existing right. Take away the Constitution, and the right remains.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    Same difference (a group of people armed with guns are going to have a better time issuing edicts than a group of unarmed people...). The point is that threatening to take up arms against the government is an ironic companion to constitutional fervor.
    - LyndsySimon 10y ago
      I see where you're coming from, but I don't agree. The Constitution specifically protects the people's ability to maintain the force necessary to be a credible threat. If not to maintain the threat of armed rebellion, what purpose would it serve? Obviously actually engaging in insurrection against a constitutional government would not be constitutional. Anyone taking arms against the government would presumably believe that that government was not operating within the confines the Constitution provides; the act of insurrection would be seen by them as a remedy to an unconstitutional government and therefore neither party would be subject to it.

maxerickson 10y ago

There's calls right here in this discussion to alter the constitution. It's not sacrosanct. So it's not impossible to regulate guns in a way that would not be allowed under today's constitution, just difficult. edit: I see you've discussed this below. Interesting though that gun owners rising up to protect themselves from the government wouldn't be constitutional (it would be done under the authority of the gun, not under the authority of the Constitution).

LyndsySimon 10y ago
> it would be done under the authority of the gun, not under the authority of the Constitution It would be done under the authority of "the People" - the same authority through which the US Constitution was enacted (or so the logic goes) Note that the Constitution does not "grant" a right to arms, but recognizes a pre-existing right. Take away the Constitution, and the right remains.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  Same difference (a group of people armed with guns are going to have a better time issuing edicts than a group of unarmed people...). The point is that threatening to take up arms against the government is an ironic companion to constitutional fervor.
  - LyndsySimon 10y ago
    I see where you're coming from, but I don't agree. The Constitution specifically protects the people's ability to maintain the force necessary to be a credible threat. If not to maintain the threat of armed rebellion, what purpose would it serve? Obviously actually engaging in insurrection against a constitutional government would not be constitutional. Anyone taking arms against the government would presumably believe that that government was not operating within the confines the Constitution provides; the act of insurrection would be seen by them as a remedy to an unconstitutional government and therefore neither party would be subject to it.