Rtc.gif

In yesterday’s post noting California sheriffs’ dislike for Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom’s latest gun control push, reader Sam I Am makes the argument in the comment section that any state can prevent the possession of any asset as long as they’re sufficiently artful in crafting their laws. As he writes, “If the majority of voters support state legislation to tax all assets at 100% of its value, that would be legal. The minority in opposition would either comply or move. There is no constitutional right to be free of taxation….”

We’re not attorneys and we didn’t stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but we’d guess the courts might step in at some point. Though just where the judicial branch might divine the line of demarcation between “reasonable” taxation and an obvious infringement on an enumerated Constitutional right is anyone’s guess.

The gist of his comment, though, has to do with the nature of representative democracy:

Point is, the voters of California voted in the legislators, and the legislators are pressing the interests of their majority voters. There is no obligation, anywhere that the majority not rule. Even the entire constitution is subject to majority rule; large majority, but majority.

What you are likely unhappy with is the fact that the majority of the public wants to get rid of guns, legislation favors that, courts validate it. When we don’t like what the majority is doing, we need to stop blubbering and become the majority. It is just silly to claim that the majority of the nation favors gun rights, when the majority of legislators, reflecting the majority of the voters, sponsors and passes anti-gun legislation over and again.

But is that really silly? The GIF at the top of the page (by Jeff Dege at gun-nuttery.com) chronicling right to carry progress across the fruited plain over the last 30 years might lead you to a different conclusion.

Still, some argue that as the country becomes increasingly urban, the tide can only turn against those who value their Second Amendment rights. Recent votes in places like CaliforniaOregon, Washington and Connecticut, certainly don’t bode well, at least for People of the Gun in those rights-challenged locales. So is Sam I Am right? Is the majority of Americans against — or at best indifferent to — gun rights?

desantis blue logo no back 4 small

69 Responses to DeSantis Gunhide Question of the Day: Does the Majority of the US Favor Gun Rights?

  1. I believe there is a very vocal minority on both sides of the issue, and that the “majority” doesn’t actually give a s#!t one way or the other. I’d bet that, given a very clear vocal majority one way or the other, the game would be pretty much over. Both sides are fighting the same thing. Apathy.

    • Yes, anyone can chuck the Constitution at any time, THE PRESCRIBED METHOD TAKES A LITTLE DOING (on purpose) BUT YOU CAN USE ANY MEANS AT YOUR DISPOSAL OTHERWISE.

      PLEASE GIVE AS MUCH WARNING AS YOU DEEM FIT, AND THE REST OF US WILL DEVOTE THE PROPER AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION TO OUR RESPONSE.

      IF YOU FEEL IT NECESSARY OR DESIREABLE TO PULL FROM RESOURCES OUTSIDE THE U.S., THOSE IN OPPOSITION WILL DIRECT AS MUCH REQUIRED RESPONSE AGAINST THEM AS WELL.

  2. I think the flaw in this argument is that politicians don’t necessarily reflect majority opinion on every issue. From my experience and from what some polls suggest, a majority of Americans are favorable toward gun rights, but they don’t view that as the most important issue. Therefore, a politician could easily be popular in the most important issues to the majority of Americans, but hold an unpopular opinions toward gun rights and still get elected.

  3. Nope. Support for the right to own a gun and carry it is at all time highs. Every time a cop is videoed being a jag off the “just call 911” advice gets another hole shot in it. Pun intended. And this support is actually spreading to the younger ages and minorities. Everyone I go to s gun store I love seeing the diversity in age, gender and ethnicity. He’s right about needing to become the majority. Fortunately more and more people are seeing the need to be able to protect themselves with at least a pistol. Ask someone to watch footage of the riots in Baltimore and Missouri and then tell them to just call the police when you need help.

  4. When a party is in power, they may choose to redistrict their precincts. Through this “jerry-mandering” and through the use of electoral votes as opposed to popular votes, elections can be engineered with guaranteed advantages to the party in power.

    We see this as the case in California and New York most explicitly. Upper state residents in both states tend to be fairly conservative, however are overruled by large population centers that are largely liberal. Even if these areas do get members elected that are conservative, they still lose because more lawmakers are elected from the large cities, ensuring unequivocally that one voice has sway over the state government. This is why sweeping party changes in both state and federal government are rare events.

  5. It seems artfully crafted State legislation can also limit or tax the 1st Amendment as well if the majority of voters support it.

    The real issue is the majority cannot be bothered to use due diligence as Citizens of the Republic. Elected officials exploit this flaw to become powerful and enjoy the associated wealth.

  6. Sam I Am is apparently lives under the assumption that government acts on the will of the people. In reality government acts on the will of itself.

  7. While I like Sam I Am comments his statement about the majority is wrong. Governments responsibility is to protect the minority not the majority. Majority can vote their like into government, legislators can make laws, fortunely that pesky judicial branch keeps wayward lawmaking in check.

    If the majority wants to band guns, then do the heavy lift of 2/3 state ratification (which this generation cannot muster) to change the Second Amendment.

    • His point was not about what the government should do, but about what it can do.

      The state government does, indeed, have essentially unrestricted taxation power. And so they can effectively ban things, NFA-style, simply by placing outlandish taxes of them that vast majority of people cannot pay.

  8. some argue that as the country becomes increasingly urban

    Another feature of unrestricted immigration (legal or unlegal). Delete both and most of the BS “problems” the demtards love to “solve” go away.

    • 1) Immigration in this country is heavily restricted. That’s why so many come here illegally.
      2) As farming requires fewer workers, due to technological efficiency, and more people work for companies with physical offices, there will continue to be a migration to the cities.

      The first one is easy to solve with a guest worker program, independent of the path to citizenship. The second one will slow as communication technology improves.

      • It’s not about working, either on the farms or in the cities. It never was. That old canard about Americans not wanting to pick fruit, and so we need immigrants to do it, was always a scam. Agriculture has become less and less labor intensive and more capital intensive with each passing decade. So the labor demand just isn’t there. The popuation centers are in the cities.

        The Democrats know this. That’s why they institute sanctuary cities attracting even more illegals. Most immigrants make a beeline for the cities (where commercial agriculture is not only practical, but often illegal), not to work, but to become firmly ensconced in the welfare state. Jobs in the cities, especially those amenable to telecommuting, require higher skills, which illegal and most legal immigrants tend not to possess.

        Our government doesn’t even want such high skilled workers! This is why the Democrats routinely reject any GOP proposal to allocate a larger share of work visas to immigrants holding STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) degrees. The Democrats only want the poorest, least educated, quickest reproducing, and, yes, most criminally inclined, type of immigrants. Those are the ones who depend on government, grow the government, and vote Democrat.

        It isn’t just actual cash payments, though that is abundant, but also the free healthcare and the free public schools, too. The more in each system, the more government workers (read: Democrat voters) they generate. The dirtiest of the Democrat secrets is that this calculus applies to the penal system, as well.

        These illegals are far more heavily dependent upon government services of all kinds than native born citizens are. Import the illegals by truckload and you’re guaranteed to grow the government. Government is the Democrats’ product. It’s how they make their own money, whether in elected office or in the bureaucracies. So this is all about money, power and job stability for Democrats.

        These illegals churn out new voters via their children, who are instant citizens, and their own illegal voting. This constituency is important and makes the difference in many elections. It’s why Democrats fight any effort requiring proof of citizenship or even I.D. as a voting requirement. They don’t want to shut out their source of illegal votes.

        So, no, neither a guest worker program nor telecommunications technology will stanch the flood of immiserating illegals, as working was never the goal. Importing freebie seeking hordes, who are easily addicted to government and reliably counted among Democrat voters, is the goal.

        • Mechanization does eliminate some need for labor, particularly in any grains or hays, potatoes and cotton. But this is not true with respect to almost all produce, whether it be all fruits, nuts, asparagus, artichokes, broccoli, lettuce, noncommercial tomatoes, zucchini, cucumbers, leaks, boc choy, green beans, grapes, and so on, ALL of which are hand picked. These crops are heavily grown in California, Alabama and Georgia, and without migrant farm workers there is no one to harvest crops, prune trees, tie vines, etc. In addition, all meats are processed by hand, and many migrant workers (and illegal aliens) work in these industries throughout the Mid West. These are some of the hardest working people you will every find, and they typically live in appalling conditions so they can save money to send home. Which is why many nonHispanic or nonAsian Americans won’t take these jobs: the work is too hard and the pay too low. Without these workers, 90% of California’s agricultural industry would collapse.

        • lotta truth in that, jh.
          pretty sure if i hadn’t been born here i’d want to get in.

        • Maybe it should collapse then, and those who refuse to pay actual market value for labor be driven out of business and into prison.

        • “Maybe it should collapse then, and those who refuse to pay actual market value for labor be driven out of business and into prison.”

          Focusing on the those that refuse to pay actual market value for labor is focusing only on half the equation.

          Are you prepared for your food costs to go up? Wanna pay $10 for a head of lettuce, for example?

          Just like the North-easterners and Europeans in 1860 that enjoyed the low cost of southern grown textile raw materials, people today are more than willing to turn a blind eye on everything “wrong” in the supply chain so long as they enjoy low prices for foodstuffs at Walmart.

        • If people start actually getting decent wages for low-skilled jobs, $10 for lettuce won’t look all that bad.

    • Urbanization has nothing to do with immigration, and everything with economic efficiency. When wages race to the bottom (as they always do in unregulated capitalism), workers have to live closer to their jobs. What caused urbanization originally was the rise of manufactories, and later factories, that required a lot of labor concentrated in one place; combined with sinking wages, it means that all that labor also had to live in that place, or at least close by.

      When middle class is doing well, it doesn’t want to live in the city, and you get suburban sprawl. Whether said middle class is immigrant or not doesn’t matter – as an immigrant, I can assure you that I have just as much desire to own my land and my house, and not bump elbows with other people unless I choose to, as anyone born in this country. It’s only a matter of affordability.

      Today, we’re seeing the reversal of suburban sprawl and increasing urbanization, again, as owning a house and commuting becomes more expensive, and real wages remain stagnant (and, for some categories, are falling).

      So, you don’t want urbanization? Vote for candidates that can resuscitate the middle class.

  9. Our rights and our ability to live our lives as we each see fit should not be influenced by either a rule of the minority or a rule of the majority.

    The only appropriate answer to “is it what the people want?” is “who gives a shit?” I don’t do or not do things because of the will of the people or the will of government. I do or don;t do things I want to do or not do. Sure, some things are on the super cereal down low because of the opinion of a bunch of retarded authoritarians who have nothing better to do than scope and judge others but still I do and don’t do the things I want or don’t want to do.

    Screw the majority. Screw the minority for that matter.

  10. I agree for what my opinion is worth….that 1. There are record numbers buying guns in every age bracket. My wife and I are middle aged, a young friend of ours in his early 20’s and I know folks much older than us that have bought or are planning to.
    2. I also agree that elected officials do not necessarily vote their constituents preference.
    We as gun owners absolutely need to make our voices heard in ways that inspire confidence and comfort ( safety) to the general public. How to do that is something that I would take an active part in but do not know how to go about collectively starting.

    • Last time I was in a real, live gun dealership/range, I was quite seriously shocked by the number of piercings, tats, high volume colors, weird clothing, creative hairdos, and so forth. Several people (the place was packed!) looked as though they expected to be rejected or criticized by us OFWGs, which did not happen within earshot of me, even as they purchased or rented more and more handguns. I found myself wondering if I had wandered into a “millennials sale” or something. I’ve been in gun stores off and on for over 50 years now, and I have never seen anything like it. And I love it!

      I believe that gunowners are 100 million strong, and growing every day. The laws/constitution are on our side, common sense is on our side, reality is on our side, statistics are on our side, HISTORY is on our side. We are opposed by 2-3 million mental defectives who cannot be bothered with the truth, but have studied forever how to make enough noise to attract the attention of people who might send money.

  11. Recent votes in places like California, Oregon, Washington and Connecticut, certainly don’t bode well…

    In the case of WA and OR, it was simply uninformed voters believing the Bloomberg lie that universal background checks will prevent criminals from getting guns. In both of these states, you can still walk into a gun store, fill out a form and plop down some cash, and walk out with a GLOCK AR-47 machine gun with a 100-round clipazine full of armor piercing, cop-killer, hollowpoint bullets.

  12. Sam I am misses the entire point of the Bill of Rights. This nation was set up as a representative republic, not as a democracy and that distinction does in fact matter. The Founders set forth “no-fly zones” for government authority. They called this list of no-fly zones, the Bill of Rights.

    Yes, a majority may vote for any stupid law they wish, as long as that law does not impede on a citizens right to freedom of religion, or of the press, or on their right to peaceably assemble, etc.

    While the Bill of Rights was originally written to restrain only the federal government, the Supreme Court has long since ruled that the state governments are also restricted by them.

    So, Sam I am is wrong. The power of government is not unlimited. It is limited by the Bill of Rights specifically and by the enumerated powers within the Constitution generally.

    • I think he understands it, read the end of his first paragraph:
      Even the entire constitution is subject to majority rule; large majority, but majority.
      The entire constitution, including the bill of rights, is subject to amendments, which is a “majority rules” process.

  13. Beats me. If you vote dumbocrat you don’t care. Hey if you vote Trump it’s still Russian Roulette. Off to put a gun on layaway-paid for with SS. I will not comply…

  14. The graphic needs to be changed to Concealed Carry. Kentucky has had “no permit” open carry since we became a state.

  15. I think that the writer forgets that the majority rules, with protection of the minority’s rights. Otherwise, Representative Government becomes mob rule.

  16. These articles always show Hawai’i as a “may issue” state. In reality, it is a “no way in hell” state.

  17. The good people of the country are mostly protected from the anti-gunners of the left coast and the Northeast. A republic structured like ours is tends to protect us from mob rule states like California, but we are vulnerable to federal level politics including SCOTUS. You have written your Senators about possible Obama Nominees, right?

  18. Wyoming is only constitutional carry for its own residents. Should not be colored green. (Maybe a green/blue crosshatch.)

    Before someone points out that most of the people affected by their laws are their own people, there’s a 14th amendment issue here, and Wyoming makes a lot of money off tourism.

  19. If progressives are proactively pursuing progress, shouldn’t they be happy? I mean look at all that progress and change!!!

  20. I think that the majority of Americans are fudds and they don’t know it. They think they are pro gun but then you ask them about registration, background checks, full autos, etc. and they are not lovers of the second amendment.

  21. The question of the day is a closed-ended question (yes/no) to an open-ended issue, so there can’t be a valid answer. I know a lot of POTG see “Gun Rights” as either you’re for “shall not be infringed, period” or you a “butter” or you an “anti.” Sorry, the world isn’t that simple that it fits in those little boxes

    I think the vast majority of Americans support some forms of Gun Rights AND some forms of Gun Control, both at the same time, and they see no conflict. And they are continually shifting on what forms of each they support based on what they see on the news and what happens close to them.

    The strict 2A argument has its place, but it does not always carry the day. The NRA estimates there are over 30,000 infringements to 2A across the country. Just as the antis will never get 2A amended in our lifetime, we are not going to see all those 30,000 infringements go away in our lifetime. This is a case-by-case battle that has be won and re-won every day.

  22. Is the majority of Americans against — or at best indifferent to — gun rights?

    I think that is the case in Hawaii, California, Cook County Illinois, and the Boston-Washington D.C. Megalopolis. As for the rest of the nation, I think the majority of Americans support a fairly robust right to keep and bear arms with some caveats that others have touch upon.

    I imagine most people support background checks in the “innocuous” state as they currently appear. (Expanding the categories of “prohibited people” could run into some serious widespread resistance, really fast.) And a modest majority may not like the idea of owning military-style rifles. Beyond that, I am pretty confident that a solid majority of people in the U.S. favor a largely unfettered ability to purchase and own handguns, shotguns, and hunting rifles.

    • If they’re against “military style” rifles (whatever those are, since pretty much every rifle that exists has been used by a military at some point), they sure show it in a funny way.

      What with the AR15 being the most popular rifle in American history and all. Tens of millions are in circulation now, with more going out the door every day. I guarantee you that those millions aren’t going into the safes of just a few hard core gun nuts (like us).

      Every person I know who just got into guns in the last ten years buys three guns first thing: A polymer wundergun (usually a 9mm), a pump action shotgun (usually a Mossberg 500 or a Remington 870), and an AR15 (no brand preference here that I can discern, at least from the circle of people I know).

      They don’t all buy them in that order, but EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM bought those three guns in the first year of their POG membership.

      Most then go back and add a CCW pistol (’cause they invariably buy a full size wundergun the first time around), a nice bolt action rifle in a big bore caliber, and then at least one more AR15 (sometimes many more than one).

      Young people who are not SJW fools on certain college campi (’cause not all colleges are liberal hell holes, my engineering school for example was quite conservative in some ways, and utterly apolitical in all others, but then again, engineers have to be reality based, or people die) tend to be very supportive of freedom and liberty in general (this extends to some things that social conservatives don’t like, but by and large is good for our cause).

      Some places inevitably reach “stupid critical mass” and swing to the ultramaroon side, but the only places that they can take over and ruin the whole state are where the giant city-states are (Chiraq, NYC, LA, SanFran, Seattle, etc).

      I don’t know what you can do with the ultramaroon cities except build a wall around them and hope for an asteroid strike. Logic and reason don’t work, we’ve been trying that for a century, and even actual real world historical results are disregarded, so I don’t know.

      IF there was a guaranteed solution to these fools, we’d have maximum freedom and probably people living on the moon and mars by now.

      Instead we continue to argue about whether it’s a good idea to use force against your own neighbors to make them work to support your other lazy neighbor, and the gov’t continues to collect the fruits of every working person’s labor, pile it all up into a big pile, and light it on fire.

      For fairness.

      • “… but then again, engineers have to be reality based, or people die …”

        Hah! That’s a good one. (No sarcasm.)

        You do realize, though, that every demographic has irrational members, even engineers. Proof: all the degraded, defective, broken products in our midst (especially software).

        • Failures are not proof of irrationality. They are only proof of lack of infallibility. There’s a HUGE difference.

        • People who design and write software are not engineers, they are computer scientists.

          Just because some hack in HR calls them a “software engineer” does not make them an actual engineer.

          Also, engineers can be trusted to shower regularly on a volunteer basis, where as with comp sci’s, that’s something you have to mandate in an employment contract, or it don’t happen. 😉

          And no, engineers are not infallible, but they tend to be much more grounded people than say, folks who study art history or literature or politics.

          Ergo, the people who study engineering and the schools they study engineering at tend to be less steeped in leftist bullshit than your average big name state school.

        • >> People who design and write software are not engineers, they are computer scientists. Just because some hack in HR calls them a “software engineer” does not make them an actual engineer.

          I design and write software for a living, and I disagree. Computer scientists are the guys who design algorithms and such. There is overlap, but for vast majority of software developers, “engineer” is the more accurate term – and most of these people don’t need a Comp Sci degree to do what they do (in fact, a significant proportion of the trade would really be much better served by trade schools).

      • This is the most beautiful, succinct, informative, and every other superlative I can think of, exposition on this subject I have read in ages. Thank you! (And I am older than dirt.)

        • But isn’t what we mostly hear and read is that “military style” rifles are the most popular hunting rifle. And that’s it? The type of statement posted here does not seem to appear in any pro-gun publication, law suit or media release.

  23. I’m not sure increasing urbanization will automatically lead to more gun restrictions. I live in a small town in a very rural area and the idea of carrying, either concealed or open (something I’ve never seen done anywhere in the state, although it’s been legal for several years) would be just a nuisance. If, however, I was living in one of the state’s mostly modest metro areas, I would certainly consider concealed carry.

  24. Sam I Am says….

    Wow. Never expected to be highlighted by the blog owners. This is probably my long awaited 15 minutes of fame. Thank you, Dan.

    And now to fun things…..

    I did read all 31 comments available at the moment of this entry.

    The visual provided in the post by Dan is well done and very interesting. I like it. However….(and you knew there would be a “However”) it is not free of data conflation. As noted, some of the colors mask important exceptions. One of the misconceptions one might suffer is that the rate of gun rights expansions in the past is indicative of a similar rate of change in our favor going forward. There is no data to support that conclusion; be careful. Just as there is no data to support the idea that the surge in gun sales represents a directly respective rise in the number of new gun buyers; maybe, maybe not…we cannot know.

    From the beginning, my thesis has been that people who think states should be pretty much left alone by the federal government, are miffed that a sovereign state, based on the will of the voters, is doing something legitimate…but something the commenters here don’t like. The reasoning being that somehow constitutionally protected rights are being violated just because the majority in California wants near-confiscatory regulation of guns. Either states have the right to regulate their own affairs (so long as federal laws are not violated), or they do not. 10th amendment declares the states have rights.

    In our form of government, people elect representatives to, well, represent the constituency to the legislating bodies. The representatives represent the majority of their constituents. Even when the representatives (acting as “the government) act only in their own interests, if they are not turned out of office for doing that, the majority has ratified those selfish actions; majority rule by omission or default.

    Some here believe there is some sort of constitutional obligation for the government to protect minority rights. Search the constitution and you will find nothing of the sort. Indeed, if the majority cannot rule, nothing gets done, ever. What “protection of the minority” exists is found in federal law, state law or court decisions (some of which actually violate the constitution, as we all know). Take this to the absurd conclusion….the majority must act/rule in such a way that the minority will not object, making the minority the majority.
    Too many believe somehow that “protection of the minority” means laws and regulations may not in any way cause a member of whatever minority to do something the minority objects to. This gets us into the absolutist vs. “reasonable” views of the nature of the law and constitution. Which itself is merely a contest between personal preferences.

    The founders were concerned that minority “rights” be protected (minorities have the same “rights”, protected in the constitution), not comfort. If the majority decides a matter that is not if violation of the rights under the constitution, the “protection of the minority” is secure, even thought minority does not like the outcome of the political contest. (the term “rights” in my writings are meant to add emphasis and clarity).

    And in conclusion….well….TTFN

    • It’s worth noting that states also have their respective constitutions. So from a tenther perspective (which I partially share), the proper course of action is to enact such constitutional amendments as are necessary to protect the relevant rights in your state, or if they already exist, to enforce them via courts. Unfortunately, there’s too much focus on 2A in the pro-gun community, and the equivalent state-level protections are often ignored or overlooked.

      • Not overlooked at all.

        Most gun friendly states already have such clauses in their state constitutions, and many have strengthened or expanded such language in the last several years.

        My state (MO) just recently added a clause to the state constitution that recognizes the right to bear arms (and ammunition and all accessories and such that facilitate the use of arms) as an unalienable right, which forces our state courts to apply only strict scrutiny to any laws which address the RTKBA, and further stated that our law enforcement officers were not allowed to enforce any federal laws that conflict with the MO constitution, and further they are to arrest any federal officers who attempt such actions inside the state.

        IIRC, Kansas passes something similar recently, as has Texas and Kentucky and Tennessee. I think Montana and Idaho already had such language in their constitution, maybe from its inception (not sure there).

        The deal is, in places where they’re ALREADY protected, gun rights are exceptionally good and either staying the same or getting better, while in the places where they aren’t, they’re exceptionally bad, and getting worse.

        I see no way to reverse this situation, as all the gun rights hellholes are also leftist ideological hellholes, which have been shown to be immune to reason, logic, history, and all forms of feedback from reality. They suffer the consequences of all these things, but can never figure out the source of their suffering.

        As Robert Heinlein said, “Economic collapse ensues immediately upon the implementation of leftist economic theories. This is called ‘Bad Luck’.”

        • >> The deal is, in places where they’re ALREADY protected, gun rights are exceptionally good and either staying the same or getting better, while in the places where they aren’t, they’re exceptionally bad, and getting worse.

          Both Oregon and Washington have fairly strong RKBA provisions in their respective constitutions – both explicitly list self-defense as a valid justification, and WA specifically declares it an individual right. Didn’t stop UBC, and I very much doubt it’ll stop AWB if and when it happens.

  25. Our government os not strictly that of majority rule. One of the most important purposes of the constitution is to protect the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority.

  26. Taxing something that is protected as a right in order to get rid of it is no different than a poll tax, and just as unconstitutional.

    • We have no “right” to no taxation of guns and/or ammunition. SC already ruled that states (even cities) can put fees on gun purchases indirectly (background checks). Some states have legitimate (court approved) “gas guzzler” taxes for vehicles that fail to achieve some set mpg standard.

      Courts have ruled that states/cities cannot put a fee/tax on a exercising a right (which means ongoing owner fees and such). But taxes on the equipment, like taxes on any other equipment/tool are legitimate. Taxes on ammunition that “pollutes” is also allowed. It would be just hunky dory if there could be no charge other than the MSRP of the gun/ammo, but that just isn’t realty, nor ever likely to be.

  27. “Though just where the judicial branch might divine the line of demarcation between “reasonable” taxation and an obvious infringement on an enumerated Constitutional right is anyone’s guess.”

    Apparently the limit is somewhere north of a $200 tax on a $20 M3 Grease Gun.

  28. Your map is incorrect. RI is both with one being more common because it’s easier to get which will shall issue thru local cleo. You can also apply thru AG which is may issue. Much harder to get

  29. He kind of has a point, to a degree. After all, look at MA, a state I escaped from in 2008. The voters there kept electing a murderer over and over simply because he was a dem and the name. They also keept electing a pederast in one district, and a homosexual pimp in another district. MA would elect David Duke if he ran as a democrat.
    MA even refused to vote to eliminate the anti-consumer Local Franchise Agreement law which allowed the every town to be restricted to only one cable provider at much higher cost than they would have if they had actual competition.
    MA voters have opposed every effort to eliminate the insane regulation impose by the attorney generals office under the guise of “child safety regulations.” Those regulation require a 10# minimum trigger pull which makes shooting a firearm accurately a much more difficult challenge. Even more so for those with disabilities like arthritis. Think the pull strength of an FNX45 without the hammer cocked. My wife can’t pull that. But she can certain fire her free state H&K VP9.
    MA AG also instituted a specific LCI requirement that is being challenged. And it supposedly also requires that one cannot put a round in the chamber without a magazine present.
    Every gun in my home is illegal in MA. Even those that meet the very low 10 round max mag are illegal to transfer in the state because they have real triggers, not 10# triggers.
    Never moving back to MA. Nope. Love my freedom too much.
    Another thing. MA and CA voters have no problem voting for higher taxes that then force families to become two income just to pay the taxes. They think single income households with two parents are tax evaders.

  30. Ask him if he feels slavery was morals when the majority favored it? Or Jim Crow ? Does he think red states should be able to ban gay marriage ?

    • Please disconnect your thinking that law, justice and morals are synonyms. Law is law, period, nothing more. My statements are not related to “right and wrong”, but to what is possible/permissible under the constitution, in a sovereign state. Questions/discussions about the morality of law, or the law of morality are for another day, another posting.

      Explaining a phenomenon does not equate to endorsement or disgust.

      • You talk about “majority” of Americans voting politicians in, well how can you equate a majority of Americans when there is at best a 30 – 36% voter turnout??? When Americans don’t want to vote you get the kind of government that we currently have!!! It is a sad state of affairs when the vocal minority indeed becomes the “majority”!!!!

        • “It is a sad state of affairs when the vocal minority indeed becomes the “majority”!!!!”

          Correct, Sir ! It is sad. Two comments….

          1. I try to use the full phrase “majority of voters”, meaning those who actually vote, rather than the mythical group called “voters”, meaning those eligible to vote. I may need to refine further to, “the majority who vote”, or “the majority who voted”.

          2. The lack of overall participation in elections has many causes, but I think it mostly reflects what we are seeing today generating so much support for Trump…people don’t believe their vote/lives matter to politicians. This is probably most keen for conservative-minded people/voters. Or better put, “people who hold traditional American values”.

  31. The Constitution is the Law of the Land. We are a representative REPUBLIC. It does not matter at all whether a “majority” of people want something or do not want something. That opinion does NOT trump the Constitution. Even gun laws are un-Constitutional because they infringe….even if slightly….that which is forbidden to be infringed upon. Read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights; they are RESTRICTIVE Amendments. The 2nd conveys NO right. It protects a RIGHT which was understood to have pre-existed the Constitution, the new United States….all the way back to when the Pilgrims were loading the Mayflower in Denmark. If you want it repealed…..and I suggest that an amendment that forbids a right to be infringed can be repealed because repealing it would be an infringement or result in one…..but if you want to try, do it per the Constitutional rules for amendments. Or how about just exercise your God given, Constitutionally protected right; obtain a firearm, learn how to use and protect your own ass, because courts have ruled that police have no duty to protect you.

    • >> The Constitution is the Law of the Land. We are a representative REPUBLIC. It does not matter at all whether a “majority” of people want something or do not want something.

      You know that Constitution can be amended right? By – wait for it… – the (super)majority of votes. Of state legislatures, yes, but they are elected by the (simple) majority of people, effectively.

      So what the majority of people want does in fact matter, even in a constitutional republic. It needs to be a different kind of majority, but still.

    • Please re-read my proposition, again. Point is not “shall not be infringed”, “civil right”, or even “representative government”. My point is that belief and reality regarding “rights” (as commonly perceived on this blog, are quiet different than people want to believe.

      In representative government, voters elect “representatives” to represent the voters in legislative bodies (not considering some municipalities where some members of the ruling body are appointed). The representatives propose/oppose legislation representative of the simple majority of the voters who elected the representatives. The elected representatives do not represent individual voters (there would be one representative for every voter), but represent the majority of voters.

      When representatives do something the majority of voters opposes, either the majority chastens the legislator, or acquiesces. If the majority of voters do nothing to correct the representative, the majority of the voters de facto support and agree with the representative(s). Just because an individual voter does not like what the majority brings about, the majority does not become suddenly illegitimate, moot, void. Unless overturned by a proper court, the majority rules. Period.

      So it is with the “rights” enumerated (and some say derivative) in the constitution. Every single “right” is subject to majority rule. There is no cosmic force that forbids, prohibits, or prevents the alteration or elimination of constitutional “rights”. Indeed, the founders did not establish a government wherein there is no method to modify the provisions of the constitution. That idea was surfaced and rejected in the original negotiations, Therefore, with a “super” majority of the legislatures of the individual states, any “right” in the constitution can be modified and/or repealed. There is no place for a ratified amendment to be considered “unconstitutional” because the amendment repeals another amendment, or any other element of the constitution. The “unalienable rights” noted in the Declaration are not similarly called-out in the constitution. Oversight? I think not. (BTW, it would be a very interesting time if ever the constitution was amended to permit slavery again. In such a case, there would be a great deal of sympathy for importing international law into a court decision declaring such amendment unconstitutional, but once that precedence is set, the entire fabric of American political life is subject to the whims of “international law”; we are no longer a sovereign nation.)

      The singular point to all this is that running around shouting, “Shall not be infringed; shall not be infringed; shall not be infringed.” is not a universal talisman that, in and of itself, invalidates,renders moot, defeats, removes, or mitigates said infringement. “Infringements” can only be remedied through legislation (including modifying the constitution) or the courts. One cannot even prevail in court by merely repeating, “Shall not be infringed; shall not be infringed; shall not be infringed.”

      The argument that rights enshrined in the constitution are not subject to “utility”, “value”,
      “need”, are simply wrong. Once the majority of voters, through the constitutional amendment process, determine that a certain “right” no longer is necessary, that “right” can be curtailed, circumscribed or eliminated.

  32. Significant errors: nothing in the Bill of Rights about tax limitations; the right to Keep and Bear Arms (in the Bill of Rights) is a fundamental individual right and has repeatedly been acknowledged as such for 200 years — thousands of primary source documents, Federal, state and private, validate this. Furthermore, the Bill of Rights was amended to the Constitution to protect individual and minority rights, not to validate the majority opinion. The history of civil rights movements in the US date well before Martin Luther King, Jr, and were (and still are) about individuals and minorities asserting their fundamental rights in the face of the “majority” opinions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *