Wednesday, August 6, 2014

Missouri voters declare right to keep and bear arms 'unalienable' . . . sort of

Amendment 5, although a large positive step for Missouri gun owners, lends a veneer of legitimacy to the practice of allowing voters to decide whether or not government is to be forced to recognize our fundamental human rights as "unalienable," and Bloomberg is spending scores of millions to convince low information voters to give the government a free hand. Might we have given up more than we gained?

3 comments:

Paul X said...

"...by subjecting the fundamental human right of the individual to the approval of the masses, by making legal exercise of that right conditional upon the popularity contest of a vote, this approach voluntarily surrenders the high ground inherent to defending a right that is truly unalienable."

This speaking in terms of rights is the kind of thing that twists people into knots, as seen here. The author in the same article stated it didn't matter what the electorate said about it. So which is it?

I think it is better to stop using "rights" as your landmark and just say, "I won't be disarmed." There is nothing to argue about then.

Anonymous said...

In order for the democratic vote - direct or indirect via representation- to have authority over the right to keep and to bear, the votes held would have to be in favor of repealing the Second itself ( as the 18 th was outright repealed I it's entirety). Only THEN could a vote like this one hold merit.
After all, we the people ARE the ultimate source of authority over government and governance and we COULD decide to ( a ) disband the political ties that bind or (b) simply amend our framing document to reflect what we - together- now view as self evident.

This can, then, be argued both ways. 1) the people actually do hold the authority to vote on this and 2) inalienable rights are outside the parameters of the democratic vote. Both are actually true positions. HOWEVER, and this is WHY the bill of rights was put together as a package deal in the first place - taking even one part of it apart destroys it all and this reality would stop any attempted repeal.

The beauty of that article set was that the very process that brought it about could remain in place but - as M C Hammer sang..,. You can't touch this.

Dayum them founders were friggin clever.

May well have afforded the zealots some false premise by going along with this but the response should be a unified push matching the Cruz takedown of Feinstein. Would you apply the same restrictions upon first amendment rights as you call for on second amendment rights? When forced to admit the answer is "no" and the reason is because of a RIGHT, the vote doesn't matter - cuz it won't get that far.

Anonymous said...

What's next, voting on if you truly have the right to life and liberty? All the more obvious why Obama wants 3rd world illegals here; for this kind of voting. Why don't we all just vote on if God given rights are really given to us from God...I didn't think I could get any sicker of this crap, but I just did!