PDA

View Full Version : Why don't we just vote on it?


jmpgnr24k
01-03-2013, 5:03 PM
I'm not sure if this is possible or not ,but with so many people feeling so strongly about the gun debate why isnt some type of vote setup to finally decide whether or not to impose gun controls since this is on a federal level. Why does it have to be left up to my representatives who are obviously anti-gun? And not representing me at all? Is sending emails and letters to my reps a waste of time if I'm voicing my opinions to them who are supposed to be representing me?

OldShooter32
01-03-2013, 5:04 PM
This time with voter ID, otherwise it will turn out just like the last election where some people voted five times while some only got one vote.

-Spectre-
01-03-2013, 5:07 PM
Some counties will conspicuously end up with 100% of the vote FOR gun control while simultaneously having a 150% voter turnout. Just like a recent election...

Rackatak
01-03-2013, 5:08 PM
I'm not sure if this is possible or not ,but with so many people feeling so strongly about the gun debate why isnt some type of vote setup to finally decide whether or not to impose gun controls since this is on a federal level. Why does it have to be left up to my representatives who are obviously anti-gun? And not representing me at all? Is sending emails and letters to my reps a waste of time if I'm voicing my opinions to them who are supposed to be representing me?

Vote to determine if the Constitution is constitutional? I'd rather not.

Hogstir
01-03-2013, 5:08 PM
ALL criminals would vote for the ban.

LoneYote
01-03-2013, 5:10 PM
Considering that "we" voted the reps in do you think we would magically win if it were just a citizen vote?

The judiciary seem like our only real option(as long as the legislature and executives continue to allow them to exist).

mt4design
01-03-2013, 5:11 PM
Then would you be comfortable with a vote on whether women can vote, there should be interracial marriage, or the Republican Party should be desolved and only a single leftist party remain?

The right to bear arms is not something that can be taken away so easily.

Otherwise, we could have a vote on whether morons and statists are protected by the First Amendment or whether congress members who engage in subversive acts against the Constitution should be assumed guilty and executed without due process.

myk
01-03-2013, 5:12 PM
Can you trust the same nation of voters that elected for another term of Obama? But voting is irrelevant anyway; the 2nd Amendment is Constitutional law, a right guaranteed to American citizens. Should we start disassembling the Constitution by questioning the right to free speech, due process or the abolition of slavery while we're at it?

njineermike
01-03-2013, 5:13 PM
First, learn how a constitutional republic works. Come back after that.

LMTluvr
01-03-2013, 5:15 PM
Maybe, just maybe because its a RIGHT. I could give a **** less if 1 or 10,000,000,000 don't "think" I should have a gun. It's none of their GD business. Besides, you don't want a vote. Vote early and vote often would be the anti theme song, not to mention all the corpses that would suddenly show up and vote for gun control...
I, along with many others don't agree with burning the flag but trying to "ban" that would be defeating the purpose. Our rights as "free" Americans are not open to opinion or convenience. They are a RIGHT 24/7 366 days a year.

DrDavid
01-03-2013, 5:21 PM
The Bill of Rights isn't based upon a popular vote. It's the foundation of this country. Don't like it? **** you.

rplusplus
01-03-2013, 5:23 PM
The Bill of Rights isn't based upon a popular vote. It's the foundation of this country. Don't like it? **** you.

This.

/thread

Lone_Gunman
01-03-2013, 5:23 PM
My natural rights are not subject to a vote.

myk
01-03-2013, 5:24 PM
It is truly sad that most citizens, specifically gun owners, do not understand the Bill of Rights or the Amendment that guarantees our inalienable right to keep and bare arms. It's no wonder we're having so much trouble...

kf6tac
01-03-2013, 5:51 PM
Even if the Bill of Rights did not exist, there is no initiative process at the federal level. That by itself would require a constitutional amendment to implement.

jmpgnr24k
01-03-2013, 6:48 PM
Wow, so many comments but yet so many here that don't do or question anything to help stop what's about to happen, Except for a couple of you and I do appreciate you at least tried to say something constructive. And drdave and rplusplus- you know what I'm trying to figure out so **** you both.

ssaction
01-03-2013, 7:47 PM
A kalifornia style ballot initiative at the Federal level???? :kest:

Cobrafreak
01-03-2013, 8:17 PM
The Bill of Rights is what the Government CANNOT TAKE AWAY. It isn't what the Government allows us to have. They are GOD GIVEN RIGHTS that we are BORN WITH. In 1994 the AWB took place because we did not have a Heller decision from SCOTUS. With the Illinois ban, this will most likely lead to a SCOTUS ruling on Semi-Auto rifles being common. This is a good thing. They WANT to take away everything, but that is far different from being able to do so. We have the Constitution on our side. Be patient.

stix213
01-03-2013, 8:22 PM
The USA is a "Republic" so please look up the definition to that term.

Damn True
01-03-2013, 8:24 PM
The best argument against a pure democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter. ~Winston Churchill

What the OP suggests is something akin to the CA proposition process. How's that workin out for us?

nothinghere2c
01-03-2013, 8:24 PM
My natural rights are not subject to a vote.

^---

dls
01-03-2013, 8:26 PM
Wouldn't matter if voted anyway, they still do what the want.

cpatbay
01-03-2013, 8:31 PM
They are not going after all our guns ... Just some they dont like us, civilians, to own. So, they argue, "we still have our constitution intact".

Tarn_Helm
01-03-2013, 8:55 PM
I'm not sure if this is possible or not ,but with so many people feeling so strongly about the gun debate why isnt some type of vote setup to finally decide whether or not to impose gun controls since this is on a federal level. Why does it have to be left up to my representatives who are obviously anti-gun? And not representing me at all? Is sending emails and letters to my reps a waste of time if I'm voicing my opinions to them who are supposed to be representing me?

No.

Considering how unwise people can be who lack education and/or common sense, I would not prefer that a popular vote have the power to 1) create, 2) sustain, or 3) eliminate my RKBA.

Popular opinion allowed us to fall into this mess.

I would never trust it to get us out of it.

Reflective men, educated in philosophy, history, literature, and law hard-wired RKBA into the U.S. Constitution.

And they hard-wired "pure democracy" out of the U.S. Constitution.

I oppose pure democratic rule as much as I oppose pure oligarchic rule (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7Nlq80DVpo).

A republican regime is the best we can hope for (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE), given the limitations imposed on politics by human nature, by the tendencies we've inherited through history, and by the logistics of modern mass societal forms of life.
:cool:

Consider this:
DioQooFIcgE

jmpgnr24k
01-03-2013, 9:48 PM
Thank you tarn helm, for educated response. So bad idea. That answers my question.

mt4design
01-03-2013, 10:23 PM
Great video Tarn Helm.

Under the despotic rule we now find ourselves, where the elected demand of the people their alligiece and unquestioned rule, we slip closer toward an oligarchy.

By the consent of the governed has been usurped and replaced with "we have to pass it first before we know what's in it."

And the want for security has brought us Patriot Acts 1 & 2, NDAA, the TSA, etc.

Now, the promise of gun control to protect us from ourselves at a time when at least half this country would vote away their liberty and scrap the Constitution and the Bill of Rights because they are ignorantly following the propaganda of the despots in power who seem very willing to destroy that which they swore by oath to protect.

We are Rome.

warbird
01-03-2013, 10:32 PM
the people have voted by buying guns and ammo. If no one cared then the sales of both guns and ammo would not be going through the roof all over the country. people have made their desire very clear with their purchases and especially with the first time buyers. They have said they do not feel like giving up their rights, they want the right to protect themselves, and they do not trust the government at any level. that is what scares government and why they do not to give people the vote on this critical issue. but teh second amendment is not up for a vote and that is why our forefather set it up that way. There are certain rights we cannot vote away if we expect this country to survive and we have an obligation to defend those rights with our lives from both foreign and domestic enemies. Feinstein being the number one enemy on any list in my opinion.

curtisfong
01-03-2013, 10:34 PM
OP is proof positive that the country as a whole doesn't understand the constitution.

Tarn_Helm
01-03-2013, 10:50 PM
Thank you tarn helm, for educated response. So bad idea. That answers my question.

Glad to oblige.

I'm learning to not be too sarcastic.

I'm almost half a century old.

Some folks in online forums forget that they might be communicating with someone either very young or very new to a particular topic.

Sometimes when you ask a simple question, the answers come flying at you hot and heavy like all-out conceptual MMA attack.

And all you might have been doing was to ask a simple question in order to learn.

Ignore the grouchy responses. (I'm guilty of throwing a few crabby ones out there from time to time myself.)

Sometimes folks come across wrong online even though they have the best of intentions and fight harder for your rights than you even know how to!

Just remember: Learning to defend yourself with deeply informed and well-reasoned replies is the intellectual equivalent of MMA.

It takes time and practice.

Stay in the octagon with us until it all makes sense.

LOL.

Hang in there.
:cool:

FoxTrot87
01-03-2013, 10:54 PM
I'm not sure if this is possible or not ,but with so many people feeling so strongly about the gun debate why isnt some type of vote setup to finally decide whether or not to impose gun controls since this is on a federal level. Why does it have to be left up to my representatives who are obviously anti-gun? And not representing me at all? Is sending emails and letters to my reps a waste of time if I'm voicing my opinions to them who are supposed to be representing me?

We are a Democratic Republic....

The Wingnut
01-03-2013, 10:59 PM
Our civil rights are not up grabs via a popular vote.

POLICESTATE
01-03-2013, 11:03 PM
Our civil rights are not up grabs via a popular vote.

QFT

If they were we'd lose our civil rights in rather short order.


But I find that our civil rights are eroding anyway as the result of various restrictions that taken individually seem innocuous in and of themselves but then collectively end up effectively turning a right into more of a restricted right.

Sometimes I think the problem isn't gun control, it's a lack of speech control, if we could just get the anti-American leftist trash to STFU we would all be better off.

But then I support the First Amendment. Even if it ultimately gives the enemies of freedom the very tool they need to destroy us.

****ing ***holes.

Tarn_Helm
01-03-2013, 11:45 PM
We are a Democratic Republic....

You might need to read this book if you feel strong leanings to "more democracy": The Irony of Democracy: An Uncommon Introduction to American Politics (http://www.amazon.com/Irony-Democracy-Uncommon-Introduction-American/dp/113360725X/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1357287217&sr=1-2&keywords=the+irony+of+democracy).

(You seem to have emphasized the notion by way of defending "democracy.")

The book systematically shows, using one set of poll results after another, that vast numbers of Americans state that they are willing to deny or at least drastically curtail our most fundamental rights.

The thesis of the book is this, essentially: The rights of the people (the "masses") that protect the masses from the "elites" (i.e., truly powerful people) in this country are precisely the rights the masses would throw away if a certain percentage of the "elites" allowed them to do so.

That is to say: The "elites" protect the "masses" from themselves, when it comes to civil rights.

The only apparent exception to this generalization emerges from certain members of our upper-echelon political class.

Democrat congressmen, along with Democrat legislators at the state level, are the ones who oppose the fullest and freest exercise of the Second Amendment on a consistent basis. Republicans tend to do this less frequently. (That's the main reason I throw my vote their way, despite their other failings.)

When I first read The Irony of Democracy: An Uncommon Introduction to American Politics (http://www.amazon.com/Irony-Democracy-Uncommon-Introduction-American/dp/113360725X/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1357287217&sr=1-2&keywords=the+irony+of+democracy) back in 1984, I was struck by the fact that a majority of people polled said that homosexuals should not be allowed to use a public library.

That strikes me as rather insane level of prejudice.

I personally do not understand why one person is homosexual and another isn't: nature, choice, etc.

I cannot imagine not being straight, myself--or wanting to be anything different.

That being said, if one tries to imagine that a homosexual could feel the same way-- "I cannot imagine not being gay/lesbian--or wanting to be anything different"--then one has some clue as to the freedom such folks need to just be who they are.

This is just one example.

There were many examples of rights that the people polled were willing to delete from the Bill of Rights in the edition of this book I read back in 1984.

Right then I knew that there would always be so many people lacking in common sense or education or both that we would always need to protect ourselves against these anti-libertarian impulses expressed by the "masses" in The Irony of Democracy: An Uncommon Introduction to American Politics (http://www.amazon.com/Irony-Democracy-Uncommon-Introduction-American/dp/113360725X/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1357287217&sr=1-2&keywords=the+irony+of+democracy).

Let's all avoid the dangerous excesses of "democracy" and stay dedicated to protecting everyone's fundamental rights in our republic.
:cool:

jmpgnr24k
01-04-2013, 9:01 AM
Awesome video. That should really be a sticky on the top of this forum to show people new to this the basics and to remind the haters that they're behaving against the very thing they're trying to defend. I'm done with this thread. Thank you.

P.Charm
01-04-2013, 9:05 AM
Vote to determine if the Constitution is constitutional? I'd rather not.

this is how I see it.

cpatbay
01-04-2013, 9:09 AM
OP is proof positive that the country as a whole doesn't understand the constitution.

Well ... a large number of voters probably don't know and don't care much about what the constitution is ... all they care about are their small circles of lifes and easily influence by what they see and hear in the papers and on TV ...

njineermike
01-04-2013, 9:25 AM
Well ... a large number of voters probably don't know and don't care much about what the constitution is ... all they care about are their small circles of lifes and easily influence by what they see and hear in the papers and on TV ...

Which is EXACTLY why the Constitution exists. To avoid the uninformed or malicious from infringing on the natural rights of others by popular for or legislative edict.

rolo
01-04-2013, 10:15 AM
I'm not sure if this is possible or not ,but with so many people feeling so strongly about the gun debate why isnt some type of vote setup to finally decide whether or not to impose gun controls since this is on a federal level. Why does it have to be left up to my representatives who are obviously anti-gun? And not representing me at all? Is sending emails and letters to my reps a waste of time if I'm voicing my opinions to them who are supposed to be representing me?

Did our school system stop teaching government classes?

It's never a waste of your time to communicate with your representative. It's your duty.

Luieburger
01-04-2013, 1:03 PM
Natural and constitutional rights aren't something that can be given or taken away by a vote. We have the right naturally no matter what, and we have the right legally because it's in the constitution.

Wherryj
01-04-2013, 5:02 PM
I'm not sure if this is possible or not ,but with so many people feeling so strongly about the gun debate why isnt some type of vote setup to finally decide whether or not to impose gun controls since this is on a federal level. Why does it have to be left up to my representatives who are obviously anti-gun? And not representing me at all? Is sending emails and letters to my reps a waste of time if I'm voicing my opinions to them who are supposed to be representing me?

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that we are living in a democracy, not unlike most of our politicians. We actually live in a Constitutional Republic where a majority vote isn't enough to remove rights legally guaranteed or granted.

Why we don't charge appellate court justices with treason when they violate the Constitution is the real question.

DrDavid
01-04-2013, 6:05 PM
Why we don't charge appellate court justices with treason when they violate the Constitution is the real question.

No, why we don't charge Senators and Congressmen for treason when they flagrantly violate the constitution and ignore court rulings is the REAL question...

mkasda
01-04-2013, 7:05 PM
I'm not sure if this is possible or not ,but with so many people feeling so strongly about the gun debate why isnt some type of vote setup to finally decide whether or not to impose gun controls since this is on a federal level. Why does it have to be left up to my representatives who are obviously anti-gun? And not representing me at all? Is sending emails and letters to my reps a waste of time if I'm voicing my opinions to them who are supposed to be representing me?

We did, in 1789!
Unfortunately, our "representatives" just ignore it.