Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu

Posted by on Jan 23, 2013 in Culture, Government, Society | 7 comments

Majority Rules… Unless it’s Anti-Gun

I’ve noticed a trend in the conservatives here in the US.  The majority rules… unless it’s something that the conservatives don’t want.

I am very tired of the pro-gun facebook posts that show just how anti-American the poster is.  The majority of the people (depending on what source you use and what survey questions are asked… see representative samples here, here, and here) want a ban on assault weapons and/or stricter gun laws.

This isn’t a discussion of the validity of a gun-ban, stricter laws, whatever.  This is commentary on how people react when they don’t like what’s going on.

The US is a democracy, and has been since it’s inception.  In the US, the majority rules (with exceptions for the electoral college).  One of the fundamentals of this country isn’t the right to bear arms or the right to drink whiskey, but the right to have votes counted.

But all these ‘patriots’ are ignoring the simple fact that they are now a minority.  In 2008, when Obama was elected, the conservatives started massive campaigns to have him removed because he wasn’t a US citizen or whatever.  Even four years later, that was an issue in some states (notably Arizona).

The majority of the people in the US voted for Obama. A true patriot understands that majority rules and should accept that and move on (literally if s/he is so moved).

The assault weapon/gun violence discussion is the same thing.  Let’s put it to a nationwide vote.  Note the whole thing, but the pieces.  But the pro-gun lobby doesn’t want to do that, because they are afraid that they will lose.  They don’t want the majority to rule, they want to keep their privileged place in the country.

It is acceptable to promote one’s opinions on a particular subject.  It is not acceptable to use force or the threat of force to coerce people into following your opinions.  Calling for the assassination of a sitting president if he supports the will of the majority of the people is not being patriotic.  It’s toughest rules.  It’s not how things are done in the USA.

One thing that the pro-gun lobby needs to realize is that the US Constitution can change.  Rights and privileges can be added… and removed.  But, in the end, those rights are nothing more than words on a piece of paper.  Just like the money you buy groceries and ammo with, it’s a social contract.   It has no power on its own.  When a lot of people start ignoring the social contracts that are based in the US Constitution and plain old common sense, then the USA as a country, as a social experiment, is dead.

If this happens because of a minority of people who feel that their rights are more important than the rest of the people in the US, then the ‘patriots’ will have destroyed the country they claim to love.

The pro-gun people need to ask themselves a question.  If the majority of the people want to impose certain restrictions on firearms, will I support the concept of majority rules and allow them or will I place my beliefs over the majority and fight them?

 

  • Copyleft

    I see your point, but I think it’s misplaced in this instance. For gun-lovers, the issue is one of defending civil rights, which should be immune to majority vote. (Compare to the gay-marriage issue; should the “majority rule” in that case?)
    Don’t get me wrong, I agree that better gun controls and regulations are warranted. But I don’t reach that conclusion simply by taking a poll and saying “majority rules.” As a skeptic and atheist, I’m always wary of embracing that principle. I’ve very often been the one in that small minority, fighting to uphold my rights -against- the will of the majority.

    • simlodonsretreat

      That’s a good point.

      I think that there are two differences in my mind. The first is that a gun is a thing. It is not a right or anything else. Guns are objects that can be purchased and sold, unlike, for example, marriages. So already, we’re getting into an area where there is discrimination, just based on income. Is it a right to own a computer? It’s arguably more necessary than a firearm, yet many people still don’t have them.

      The other is one of right for self vs. right for all. Gun owners, at least the ones I see on facebook, are posting very specifically that they should be allowed to do whatever they want, regardless of the pain, damage, or deaths that are the result of their desires. Gun owners, not all, but some, are advocating more gun violence if anyone dares to try to take away their things (which isn’t going to happen anyway, but that’s another story).

      Gay marriage does no harm to anyone. If a homosexual couple is allowed to marry, it doesn’t infringe on anyone else’s rights.

      Now we’re getting complicated again. I’m going to have to think on it.

      My main argument here is that America still is a democracy. If the majority vote for something, then a patriot doesn’t kill everyone who disagrees with him.

      Maybe that’s wrong too. Hell, I don’t know.

      • simlodonsretreat

        OK, this has been bugging me.

        So, what is the difference, if any, between advocating the inclusion of gay marriage into our laws (when it was a strong minority opinion) and the minority opinion of reducing gun laws and restrictions?

        • RussellBlackford

          In what sense? Are you asking why one policy is a good policy while the other is a bad policy? The reasons for that will be complicated.
          But I don’t think the current popularity of a policy has much to do with whether the policy is a good one or a bad one, or with whether or not well-informed people have good reasons to advocate it. Good policies that we have every reason to advocate can be very unpopular, while bad policies that we have every reason to oppose can be very popular. In the end, the majority may have to get its way, at least up to a point, even if it’s committed to a bad policy. It doesn’t mean that the policy was a good one all along, just because it ends up prevailing.
          Putting it another way, if what you consider a good policy is currently unpopular, that’s all the more reason to advocate it publicly. You should want to win over more people to supporting it.

      • Copyleft

        Yes, guns are objects, and so are computers. But both are used to -exercise- a right, which is why people are so touchy about any attempts to regulate them. Printing presses are prohibitively expensive, but any attempt to legislate who was allowed to own one would have provoked fully-justified howls of outrage on First Amendment grounds… just as the SOPA controversy did in recent months.
        I don’t believe gun-lovers have a leg to stand on when they insist on ‘absolute and unrestricted 2nd Amendment rights,’ since we already have public safety laws against ownership of, say, land mines or hand grenades. But simple ownership of a handgun or rifle does not -automatically- do harm to anyone, or even endanger anyone outside the owner’s household. That’s why this can’t be a black-or-white issue, in my view.

  • http://www.www.skepticink.com/tippling/ Jonathan MS Pearce

    Have you got any links to any posters?

  • http://www.www.skepticink.com/tippling/ Jonathan MS Pearce

    What I find utterly amusing is that many American citizens seem to think the Constitution is somehow sacred, that it can’t be changed despite the many amendments.

    How silly. Any good document is a working document, open to revision in light of difficulty. To not be open to such revision is the very antithesis of free thought.