English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

16 answers

Because Democrats have worked for years to overthrow the Constitution & the Bill of Rights.
Democrat Presidents appoint Democrat Federal Judges.
We will suffer our whole lifetime for the Freaky Left-Wing Judges that Carter & Clinton appointed.

2007-07-28 09:40:21 · answer #1 · answered by wolf 6 · 2 1

That's a good question. Especially in today's world, I believe we should all have the "right to bear arms", although I know alot of people would disagree with me. Look at New Mexico where citizens are allowed to carry guns, even to their local Walmart. I know this for a fact since I know people who live there. And there are actually less murders committed in that state. It's probably because if someone wants to act nuts or stupid, they might think twice if they know the other guy has a gun too. Then there's the city of Philadelphia where they're shooting each other left and right. It all comes down to the type of people living in any given area.

2007-07-28 16:46:22 · answer #2 · answered by cynthiajean222 6 · 2 0

If states have the right to set their own laws then explain Hazelton, Pa and the Federal judge that allowed illegal aleins to reamain annonymus while filing a lawsuit against that city to remain in the country as Illegal Aleins? This is nitpiking through the law, as they see fit! The American people are allowing the government to become Communist in thought/ actions and restricting Free Speech in Churches.

Another judge turned a peophile loose that raped two little girls, because it violated his right to a speedy trial. Justice is not won by being passive. The Gun Restrictions stop government from becoming over bearing on the citizens it is supposed to protect. Did you know they are trying to pass a law to restrict bullets from being made? They want you unarmed so that you cannot fight back. That's what every dictatorship does and did do in the past! Tell me, who is protecting or will protect us from them, while they violate our freedoms?

2007-07-28 17:17:40 · answer #3 · answered by ShadowCat 6 · 0 0

Because the Second Amendment has a qualifying clause. That qualifying clause both suggests that some limitations on the right to bear arms would be permissible and that it only applies to the federal government.

Courts do not even consider the First Amendment to be absolute (which is why the conservatives on the Supreme Court just rejected the "Bong Hits for Jesus" claim).

To the best of my knowledge, no court has ever suggested that the Second Amendment was absolute and it has never been held to apply to the states (unlike other parts of the Bill of Rights).

2007-07-28 16:46:29 · answer #4 · answered by Tmess2 7 · 2 1

There is a question as to whether Joe citizen actually has a right to have a gun.

It actually states "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."

So it may be argued that unless you are a member of a state militia (In today's world the Reserves or the Military), you do not have a right to carry a gun, rifle etc..

2007-07-28 17:01:20 · answer #5 · answered by B. D Mac 6 · 1 1

THIS IS FOR YOU BD:

This is what constitutes the militia in the US:
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.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

2007-07-28 20:52:52 · answer #6 · answered by Tater1966 3 · 0 0

None of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights come without restrictions.

Your right to speech is limited - you can't slander someone, you can't yell fire in a crowded building where there is not a fire. If your religion says you can withhold medical treatment from your child, the law says otherwise. On and on...

2007-07-28 16:52:42 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Military automatic assault rifles, grenade launchers, rocket launchers, tanks and an assortment of other weapons don't fall into "bear Arms". Next you would want a nuke!

There is a trade off and everything is not absolute as your freedoms end where mine begin!

Go yell Fire in a theater!

And BD, that is NOT what the US Supreme Court said! Read their decision!

2007-07-28 17:01:34 · answer #8 · answered by cantcu 7 · 1 0

Americans DO have the right to keep and bear arms (European commentators notwithstanding), but rights are not absolute. We have the right of free speech, yet can still be punished for libel. We have the fourth amendment, yet can still be kicked out of our homes if they need to build a freeway through it.

Incidentally, how's that crime rate doing in good ol' gun-free London? Hmmm... still rising, is it? : )

2007-07-28 16:48:12 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Constitutional rights are not absolute. Your right to free speach doesn't allow you to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. Your right to freedom of religion does not mean you can sacrifice animals or forcibly convert others. Your right to own land free of government interference does not give you the right to pump mercury into the ground water under your land so that it will leach into your neighbor's property.

The government has the authority to limit your rights so that you act responsibly in the exercise of those rights. Restrictions on owning handguns and assualt rifles are meant to limit access to weapons intended only for the killing of other humans to those who will use them responsibly.

2007-07-28 17:01:49 · answer #10 · answered by mcmufin 6 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers