Isn't it amazing......?

Question

how we can see the same information, the same words from the same people and come away with completely different conclusions? For example, the second amendment...cons would say it protects the right of individuals to keep and bare arms, while I read it and say it protects the right of a state (like NY or NC) citizen militia to arm it self....against the feds...a bit archaic, now. I hear Bush and all hear are lies and deception while cons hear him and think he's truthful and great.

Kirk and Shaz: read it again....it doesn't say "...the right of people..." it says the "...the right of THE people...".....a group.

Overt Operative: when the Constitution was written, each State was independent of the others, virtually a country, and each was suspicious of the new federal authority as laid out in the new agreement of union. Individuals saw themselves as citizens of a State, first, and few thought of themselves as Americans at all....they were New Yorkers or Virginians. So they wanted it clearly stated in the law that they had the right to raise their own force both in fear of what the federal gov't might become and against another State as well as internal problems. I move around a lot, so I see myself as an American citizen with no real State association, so the notion seems archaic to me.

Answer 1

We all are different. That's what made our nation great to begin with.
To not allow someone else's difference is dangerous and eats away at our freedoms.
Some differences are a matter of right and wrong while some are a matter of viewpoint.
The difference is a fine line. It's why we have the Supreme Court.

Answer 2

Why would you think the 2nd Amendment gave the states the right to have a militia for protection from the federal government? The USA didn't even have a standing army until the 20th century.
Life in the USA was a lot different 200 years ago than it is now. State militias were needed for community defense against warring indians and highwaymen, not the non-existent federal army.

edit
The meat of your question wasn't really about the 2nd amendment. It was about Bush and why people believe whatever comes out of his mouth. I think the answer to that is the moral aspects by which he was elected. People of faith tend to follow blindly. The word blind is often associated with the word faith.

Answer 3

All "rights" under the bill of rights refer to individual rights. There can be no other reasonable conclusion. These inalienable rights were given to us by our creator. If you have a hard time understanding what the thought processes of our founding fathers, then read the Federalist Papers. Under our constitution, rights are granted by our creator, where as the enumerated powers of government are granted by us, to our government. Governments, whether state or federal, have no rights, and that eliminates your conclusion on the second amendment.



Edit
The purpose of the second amendment was to allow the people protect the rights granted to us, to protect ourselves not only from marauding Indians(sic), but from anyone that wished to do us harm, whether other people, or the government.

Edit 2
You are correct on the wording, but fail to grasp the concept of the Bill of Rights.
Amendment II

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.

Once again, there are no such things as a States "Rights"
Your conclusion is flawed, as it does not say the rights of the militias, it says the people, plural yes, because there is more than one person in the U.S.
Once again, instead of trying to put your spin on what the thought processes were, actualy read what they wrote about it.
And once again I point out that all rights are individual. Of all of the Constitional scholors (100's) that have studied this, only a very few read a collective meaning into these very easy to understand words.
And to those who are afraid of religion being injected into the the debate, read the Declaration of Independance.

First sentence, second paragraph
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Answer 4

Perception and blind faith. There are those who still believe Iraq, WMDs, etc had to do with 9/11. They have bought into the fear and propaganda. Then we have those that believe regardless the office of President can do no wrong. To say so makes a person a communist and unpatriotic. Then for some all you have to say is God or Jesus. So that must be true. As individuals or perception of truth differs. Oh and let's not forget the "true believers". The most dangerous of all. For me every time Bush opens his mouth I hear lies, more fear instilling. If he spoke the truth even the true believers would run in the other direction.

Answer 5

2nd Amendment
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

definition of Militia:
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.


So I guess it comes down to which definition you agree with.

I personally think it means people should be able to arm themselves, within reasonable bounds, in order to protect themselves..especially against their government be it State or Federal.

Answer 6

A lot of people hear whatever they want to hear or ignore paert of a statement and trump up the part that supports their beliefs. A good example is the Iraq reports....Republicans will pick the part about military progress and Democrats will pick the part about the Iraqi govt failing miserably.

Answer 7

Well, since federal courts have picked the first answer over the second, I let that be my guide.