He said it on a You Tube interview. I think someone needs to re-read the constitution. How can anyone vote for someone who does not respect the second amendment? It clearly says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
2007-06-04 09:25:57 · 14 answers · asked by F123 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I am talking about law abiding citizens, obviously.
2007-06-04 09:36:42 · update #1
By that logic, then someone could say that freedom of speech is a privilege. The constitution is pretty clear about the rights of the people and bearing arms.
The whole purpose of the second amendment is so that the government cannot just take over. If guns were only for government use then the government does not have to be responsible to the citizens. If there is no way for the citizens to fight back against a corrupt government because they were not allowed to arm themselves then the government can and will stop being of the people. There will be people who come into power who will not take citizens and their rights into consideration. The founders of this country fought a war against a corrupt government. They viewed this as a right for the citizens to have. If the government cannot take care of the people then the people can wipe out that government and start a new one. That is how this one was founded.
If the 2nd amendment only applied to a militia, then why put the "right of the people to bear arms" in there? Why were the founders so clumsy in their language to allow that in there while only wanting the government to have guns yet they were so clear in the rest of the bill of rights? Also, if the founding fathers did not want people to have guns then why did they not outlaw them back then? The constitution clearly states that the people have the right to guns.
2007-06-04 09:30:28 · answer #1 · answered by A.Mercer 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
It is a right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. Those who have been convicted of a crime or those who are not mentally stable shouldn't be allowed to have firearms of any type.
I am from NC and wouldn't vote for the sorry SOB.
And just for those of you who are not smart enough to take the time to find out who constitutes the militia in the United States here is the code...
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA
-HEAD-
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
-STATUTE-
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard....
2007-06-04 10:48:29 · answer #2 · answered by Tater1966 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
Does it include ?
1. terrorists
2. violent criminals
3. mentally ill
If and ONLY IF all ppl get to bear Arms does the 2nd Amendment apply.
Rebuttal:
"I am talking about law abiding citizens, obviously."
That is an infringed of a right ... making it a privilege :)
A Right cannot ever taken away from U !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Therefore RIGHTS DO NOT exist ... only the privileges they allow U.
ONLY a fool thinks he is free.
*******************************
Conclusion:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"well regulated Militia" <~~~ does not mean some idiot with low self esteem that needs a gun to feel like a man.
2007-06-04 09:35:12 · answer #3 · answered by Genuis by Design 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
agreed. our representatives our supposed to be the enactors and agents of the constitution. our government was set up to protect individual liberties, protecting the minority from the majority. a democracy is inherently conservative in the sense that is resistant to change. this should hold especially true for our founding documents. much cited for the politicians new agenda, they never really want to uphold its principles. instead they pander to lobbyists and interests groups like MADD and the mothers of dead children who did not know how to use a gun (drink & drive).
they do more infringing than protecting. it's just an example of stupid people ruining it for the rest of us.
2007-06-04 09:38:22 · answer #4 · answered by i'mbeingseriuos 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
In the Consitution it said we needed in case to protect ourselves from any invading attacks. It was relevant to that time period. I'm still anti-gun control and I like guns, I think every person should have the right to own a gun. NRA members aren't going on killing rampages, they are law abiding.
2007-06-04 10:58:56 · answer #5 · answered by cynical 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No I do not agree. It is a right. It is a right that cannot be taken without due process of the law.
The Democrats would rather use the constitution as toilet paper than have the average American able to defend themselves.
2007-06-04 09:34:24 · answer #6 · answered by nom de paix 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I think you need to reread the 2nd amendment, gun ownership is supposed to exist as being part of a well regulated militia, not just a bunch of people with handguns.
2007-06-04 09:40:27 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Yes, wouldn't you say that felons have lost that privilege?
2007-06-04 09:29:06 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
the constitution says otherwise.
2007-06-04 11:03:46 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hitlery wants total gun control also.
2007-06-04 10:37:35 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋