I believe in enforcing the entire bill of rights and constitution, but it seems too many people these days want some rights that they dont like taken out of the constitution ( Right to Bear Arms, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion), but they want the rights that they agree with vigourously protected. Just wondering on peoples thoughts..... Just F.Y.I.... I believe in enforcing the entire constitution and bill of rights, not just some
2007-07-29 07:10:59 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
The Constitution is fine for whomever wants to subscribe to it's content and rights as it pertains to them and their belief, so long as they do not enforce their interpretation of it onto others, in which would deny someone their own personal choice of a different interpretation and fulfillment of it's contents.
The Constitution was written for individuals, as well as the rights of those individuals.
Everyone has the right to form a group or militia, to keep themselves free of anothers belief that their freedom is restricted by someone else's interpretation of the Constitution, and Bill of Rights.
The Constitution WAS NOT written for a Government to police it's citizens, but for the People, By the People, Of the People, to police it's Government.
2007-07-29 07:20:29 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I agree that the constitution as amended and bill of rights should be protected. The problem is, these documents were written 200 years ago. Sometimes it is difficult do determine the framer's intent with respect to America in the 21st century.
A case in point is the "right to bear arms," the 2nd amendment which reads:
The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate, reads:
“ 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. ”
The copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, had different capitalization and punctuation:
“ 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.
Notice that in both versions the reason for keeping and bearing arms is the requirement for a "well regulated militia." In other words, the amendment is saying, the government can call you up for military service and you are expected to provide your own gun.
Things have changed since that was written.
If the thrust of your argument is that the Constitution and amendments are to be protected, then the entire text of the 2nd amendment, including the part about a "well regulated militia," needs to be taken into consideration.
Do Americans have a right to own guns? Sure they do, just as they have a right to purchase and use anything that is legally in the marketplace, but the right to own a gun does NOT reside in the 2nd amendment.
Even the gun lobby has stopped citing the 2nd amendment in support of its cause
2007-07-29 07:29:52 · answer #2 · answered by fredrick z 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The Constitution doesn't give us rights. It enumerates the rights we already have given to us at birth by the creator.
Everyone on earth has freedom of speech the moment they are born. Some countries guarantee those rights and some don't. Our Constitution guarantees that right plus all the others it lists.
I find it amazing that some people don't believe they have fundamental rights such as the right of self-preservation. If owning a gun means that you can save your life, why on earth would you give that up? Arguing about the 2nd amendment is ridiculous. We have the right to protect our own lives militia or not.
2007-07-29 07:42:50 · answer #3 · answered by sister_godzilla 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well, the beautiful thing about the Constitution is it's imperviousness to the individual will.
It is a most perfect document that cannot be changed or altered without great reason an much discussion and research - by Congress.
If some people had their way with it, it would then be only "another piece of paper" (as Cheney says it is)......
2007-07-29 08:18:07 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Since the Constitution is a "living document" it was intended to be able to change with the times it is only fair that Americans try to get it to reflect their beliefs. That being said, I believe some of these rights - especially the three you named - should not be messed with.
2007-07-29 07:16:51 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I get the definite impression that the Liberals want to change the Constitution. And there's nothing wrong with change. I just don't want it to change for these small special interest groups that think the minority will dictate what the majority will do, or say.
2007-07-29 07:18:34 · answer #6 · answered by Derail 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The constitution keeps the government out of my face.
Or at least, it should
2007-07-29 07:36:47 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Both Political Party`s Have a Different Version of the
Constitution & Bill of Right`s .Neither of witch is the
same as the one we have here in America .
( REPUBLICAN`s & Democrat`s alike ) hope you are LISTENING !
GOD, GUN`S and GUT`S made AMERICA
LET`S KEEP ALL THREE !!!
2007-07-29 07:42:11 · answer #8 · answered by bigfred1954 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Its basically as misquoted and interpreted with self interest as the bible.
2007-07-29 07:14:18 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
That we should follow it to the letter !!!!
Go with Ron Paul , he will .
2007-07-29 07:14:13 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋