Gotta stick up a little bit for myself. I did do a ton of research before I posted.
<Snip>
No offense intended. It's just that there are a lot of ways that the government will get around 2A by using laws that make it more difficult to get the arms. I'm not opposed to "buy USA", it's just that there are ways to make 2A irrelevant by making it impossible to get certain things.
Howdy Pard!
I appreciate your "no offense intended" spirit, and hope you will appreciate that I do not intend any offense on my part either.
That being said, too much hysteria goes into the whole "They're going to take away our 2a rights" thing.
The only way such hysteria can exist, is when people fail to understand the power of the Constitution.
So I didn't do a ton of research. I did about 2 minutes of research while sitting in a local restaurant with the only other metro area OC'er who showed up for a meet and greet that got transformed into a mini-meet. I went to a trusted source, and here are a few tidbits about claims that our 2a rights can be circumvented:
First, you can find all the information about the Hillary and the U.N. Small Arms Treaty myth here:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp
As you scan that site, you'll find language relevant to the near impossibility of dumping or circumventing 2a!
Note, if you will, that any change to the 2nd Amendment, or any other for that matter, would require a 2/3 vote of the Senate.
Since there are usually roughly half of the representatives represented by one party or the other, the ability to secure a 2/3 vote is inconceivable.
It all comes under the concept of "checks and balances" operant in government.
Note, as well, that the President does not have authority to vacate the 2nd, or any other, Amendment to the Constitution.
To make a change to the Constitution of the United States, such as adding a new or changing an existing amendment,
would involve a Constitutional Convention, and the proposed measure would require a vote to adopt from 2/3 of the American States.
Once again, you have red states and blue, pretty much in some sort of balance.
Point being, there is not any way for any jurisdiction to cobble together some law prohibiting 2a rights that isn't challengable to SCOTUS.
Have we witnessed a Constitutional Convention in recent times? Yeah, we have. Like 50 years ago or so, when I was just a boy.
They aren't easily brought about, because most folks do not have any interest in seeing the Constitution diddled with.
That's why it is so difficult to make any changes!
Between a 2/3 vote of the Senate,
a 2/3 vote of the States,
And the very real possibility of challenges to the U.S. Supreme Court....
It is a real tough thing for anybody to do.
Much less, the Secretary of State.
Ergo, these scare tactics appear on the internet all the time.
They are going to undermine this right, or that Constitutional safeguard, or dump a particular amendment.
All manner of folks get all excited because they fall for the fear mongering mythology that usually can be traced to one political agenda or another.
Such folks will try to whip up a frenzy in order to advance their own agenda, secure in the knowledge that most folks will react from a visceral emotion rather than rationally verify the facts. And most folks, honest to golly, do not check the facts. Both major political parties rely on the apathy of the American people who find it easier to accept what they're being told rather than check the facts.
And while we are thus distracted by the orchestra of hysteria produced by ad campaigns making outrageous claims about the other candidate or party, very profound and deeply troubling assaults on Constitutional rights can't hold the interest of the people; i.e. the extralegal detention of citizens in Aurora, false arrest, reckless endangerment, assault with deadly weapons, felony menacing, and illegal search in outright and abject violation of Constitutional rights of those citizens so detained.
Once you read the article found at the link I provided, all the way to the very bottom, you'll see that my claim of having "bigger fish to fry" is entirely valid.
They cannot do away with 2a. They cannot circumvent it either.
But they can (and sometimes do) ignore it outright, which is far more troubling.
Especially when part of a larger program of ignoring the rights of a citizen.
Blessings,
M-Taliesin