How can they enforce gun control "laws" if the constitution clearly say SHALL NOT be infringed?

Question

When I enlisted in the Army,I took an oath to uphold the CONSTITUTION. Are police required to take such an oath and if they are....

AM you are wrong the 2nd amendment to the United States constitution was put in place so when,not if, the government got out of control the people would have the means to take it back....

WOW Barry C. is actually going to get on here and tell everybody how stupid the founding fathers were. See just let a liberal talk and their real motivations shine....

Answer 1

They can have my gun when they pry my cold stiff fingers from it and I will take many with me who try to violate my 2 nd amendment (live free or kill those trying to restrain you)

Answer 2

First, did you notice that "well regulate" phrase in there? That means laws regulating the right to bear arms, which every State and the Federal government more than have the right to make.
Second, funny thing, the 2nd amendment doesn't mention "guns" or "ownership."
The 2nd amendment was not for overthrowing the government - you are a brainwashed fool.
The 2nd amendment was to provide State militias for the protection of the nation against foreign powers, since there was no national army at that time. Read the damn thing before you comment on it!
If you talk about overthrowing the government, you are a traitor, as was the idiot who wrote the book claiming that.
PS: Jen D, you can't just insert the word "AND" in the Constitution wherever it suits you - it's not there! You're the one rewriting the Constitution!
PPS: I'd love to see anybody provide any evidence that the Nazi's attempted to take guns away from people. I've asked countless times for this on this site, since I'm interested in WWII history, and nobody's ever replied!!!

Answer 3

The supreme court is getting ready to see a case on the DC gun ban a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment.

Isn't it Odd how the rights of "the right of the people" in the first amendment refer to the peoples right to free speech, and "the right of the people" in the second amendment refers to the rights of state governments to have a national guard.....I don't think so.

The militia act of 1792 required every white male citizen between 18 and 45 to own a rifle ammo and a back pack so they could be called in to service when needed. They were not paid and trained twice a year.

I would say if you registered for selective service you are a member of the militia.

The only way I would support national service is if it were like this, requiring every male citizen between 18 and 45 to own a 5.56 rifle that accepted standard magazine and a back pack to be called up when needed.

Answer 4

Gun control laws are un-Constitutional, but we have so many liberal judges that they skirt the issue by saying that you can have a gun, but not an assault rifle...thereby not infringing on your right to "bear arms". Give the dems enough time (and the passive nature of the current republicans, and we will all be allowed to have pop-guns.

michele...The Constitution was NOT written to be changed by interpretation, but by amendment.

Carol...how do you think a militia is formed? From the people. There is not currently a need for a militia. So, there is not one, but if we have no guns, and then there were to become a need for a militia, what do the people grab? Rocks and knives? Get a clue. A militia IS MADE UP OF PEOPLE!

BornandB...A MILITIA IS MADE UP OF THE PEOPLE! HOW CAN A MILITIA BE FORMED, IF NECESSARY, IF THE PEOPLE ARE NOT ARMED. This is such a ignorant argument.

CrG...Congress is supposed to WRITE laws, and the courts are supposed to interpret laws. This includes whether NEW laws are Constitutional or not. This DOES NOT include interpreting if the Constitution means something different today than it did yesterday. If the Constitution is to be changed, it is by amendment, not by interpretation of the courts.

Ol'Okie...Great way to put it. Many people confuse militia with military.

Answer 5

Illegally.

Read the Second people, before you start making bogus claims. NOWHERE does it state the the people or arms are to be well regulated, it is the MILITIA which is to be well regulated.

Goal: A well regulated Militia,

Reason: being necessary to the security of a free State,

Means: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Very simple, if you read it in English and not Liberalese.

This is upheld by the authors of the Second, such as Tench Coxe;
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
A Pennsylvanian (Tench Coxe), Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia Fed. Gazette, June 18, 1789

Answer 6

Obviously those who advocate for gun control have never experienced a "home invasion" as this woman did. Hospital officials on Monday declined comment on Slater’s condition, but Chapman said over the weekend that the alleged burglar, whose lungs, liver and stomach were punctured, had been placed on a ventilator. Meanwhile, the mother of 9-year-old twins is being hailed as as hero in a story that’s become a rallying cry for gun rights advocates concerned about possible new restrictions on firearms. None of the new proposals would outlaw the .38 revolver used by the Loganville woman, who has declined interview requests. She was home with her kids when police say Slater forced his way in their front door with a crowbar. Chapman said he likely did not think anyone was home because the woman’s car was parked inside the garage. But once inside, it’s suspected that Slater overheard the woman talking on the phone to her husband. Chapman said that explains why Slater headed to the attic crawlspace, where the 37-year-old working mom was hiding with her children. He was greeted by six bullets. Only one missed, but Slater was still conscious. The woman told him to stay down or she’d shoot again. Slater, unaware that she had emptied her chamber, obliged as the mother and her children ran to a neighbor’s house. The injured man — released from the Gwinnett jail in late August after serving six months for simple battery and three counts of probation violation — eventually made it out of the home and into his car, driving away before deputies arrived on the scene. He didn’t get far. Deputies found Slater bleeding profusely in a neighbor’s driveway. “I’m dying. Help me,” he told them, according to Chapman. On the way to the hospital, he was asked by a Walton deputy why he broke into the Henderson Ridge Drive home. “I was there to steal,” he told the deputy, according to the sheriff. Consider this, she emptied her gun, hit him 5 times and yet he was able to drive away. Now ask yourself, is 6 bullets enough considering his ability to drive away? Plus what if he also had a gun? gatita Degree in History ,focus Jewish studies, New Mexico State University, 1990

Answer 7

guns are made for killing.for them to be used for killing another human being is inherently wrong. but then again like any other invention they can be used for good or bad. it seems that war/s always further these types of inventions.once invented things can,t be uninvented , so it,s up to the human race to do a balancing act, you may as well say that it was ok to bomb hiroshima , that was just a much bigger gun but it took more ppl out in 1 go do you agree that it was right to use that bomb? if you do agree how do think you would cope with the consequences of your children and grandchildren being born horribly deformed today?
its not a nice thought is it?its history but so is the american bill of rights/ constitution/=inventions=mankind.sorry for ranting thats just my thoughts.
bye

Answer 8

Any of the basic rights, including free speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms - none of those are absolute and unlimited. When exercise of any of those rights infringes upon another person's rights, then you reach a limit to the rights.

One can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie house, nor libel nor slander someone. So clearly the right of free speech is not absolute. The same goes for the right to bear arms, which is also entirely couched in the context of being necessary for a "well-regulated militia."

Answer 9

I think part of the confusion over what militia is that the military is organized & militia is unorganized civilian men between 18 & 45 who are not members of a recognized Armed Forces.*
Now, when a group forms a 'militia', the government panics & breaks it up, assuming it is anti-unionistic radical group. That is occasionally the case, but not definative in all cases.
The right to bear arms is under attack by liberal, scaredy-cat people who don't want a goverment by the people & for the people, but rather government for it's own sake & their own sense of power.

Answer 10

The U.S Supreme Court has never said yes or no to the question of gun ownership. Because they have never ruled definitely the question of gun ownership have been left up to the individually states. Hence the many different laws.

Answer 11

The 2nd amendment first makes a reference to a militia, and a well-regulated militia at that.

You have to read the entire thing, you can't just pick and choose which clauses you want to pay attention to and conveniently ignore the rest.