Why do politicians completly ignore and stomp on the second amendment?

It's there, it's necessary, and it's not outdated. It seems like many liberal polititions want to illegalize guns completly ignoring the second amendment. They even try to mislead people into thinking the second amendment refers to the national guard. Newsflash, it doesn't.

Liberals and tyrants fear armed citizens.

Liberals and tyrants fear armed citizens.

aransom

"Sorry Ted, citizens are armed, we're gonna have to push back our plan to make America a communist nation."

I don't care about guns too much, but

"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."

that the exact quote from the Bill of Rights.

This was written when regular people had to go to war with their government/ruler though.

Automatic 50-page thread. Anyway, it does mention "a well-regulated militia", which does suggest a national guard-like entity. Uncle Bob in Tennessee in his isolated shack with a M-16 assault rifle and some grenades does not a well-regulated militia make.Engrish_Major

Automatic 50-page thread. Anyway, it does mention "a well-regulated militia", which does suggest a national guard-like entity. Uncle Bob in Tennessee in his isolated shack with a M-16 assault rifle and some grenades does not a well-regulated militia make.Engrish_Major

national guard = military.

Military = government

government /= militia

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]Automatic 50-page thread. Anyway, it does mention "a well-regulated militia", which does suggest a national guard-like entity. Uncle Bob in Tennessee in his isolated shack with a M-16 assault rifle and some grenades does not a well-regulated militia make.aransom

I love when kids go to schools with automatic weapons to kill everyone! ...Dr_Brocoli

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]Automatic 50-page thread. Anyway, it does mention "a well-regulated militia", which does suggest a national guard-like entity. Uncle Bob in Tennessee in his isolated shack with a M-16 assault rifle and some grenades does not a well-regulated militia make.megahaloman64

national guard = military.

Military = government

government /= militia

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]Automatic 50-page thread. Anyway, it does mention "a well-regulated militia", which does suggest a national guard-like entity. Uncle Bob in Tennessee in his isolated shack with a M-16 assault rifle and some grenades does not a well-regulated militia make.aransom

I don't care about guns too much, but

"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."

that the exact quote from the Bill of Rights.

This was written when regular people had to go to war with their government/ruler though.

Ace_WondersX

"The right to bear arms shall not be infringed"

This quote is still there. Theres only one interpritation of it, the literal one.

It seems to me that one could equally ask why people on the other side completely ignore the first half of the second amendment, which seems to me to be a clear indication regarding the spirit of the law, if not the letter of the law.

[QUOTE="aransom"]

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]Automatic 50-page thread. Anyway, it does mention "a well-regulated militia", which does suggest a national guard-like entity. Uncle Bob in Tennessee in his isolated shack with a M-16 assault rifle and some grenades does not a well-regulated militia make.xaos

TC is correct.

I don't care about guns but politicians are ignoring the constitution. I say they should just amend the constitution to make it legit.

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"]

I don't care about guns too much, but

"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."

that the exact quote from the Bill of Rights.

This was written when regular people had to go to war with their government/ruler though.

megahaloman64

"The right to bear arms shall not be infringed"

This quote is still there. Theres only one interpritation of it, the literal one.

The second amendment, like any other aged book or law, was the law of the day. Sure it worked 200 years ago or so. But does it work today with a growing and more violent population?

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"]

I don't care about guns too much, but

"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."

that the exact quote from the Bill of Rights.

This was written when regular people had to go to war with their government/ruler though.

megahaloman64

"The right to bear arms shall not be infringed"

This quote is still there. Theres only one interpritation of it, the literal one.

The second amendment, like any other aged book or law, was the law of the day. Sure it worked 200 years ago or so. But does it work today with a growing and more violent population?

BumFluff122

[QUOTE="megahaloman64"]

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"]

I don't care about guns too much, but

"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."

that the exact quote from the Bill of Rights.

This was written when regular people had to go to war with their government/ruler though.

Ace_WondersX

"The right to bear arms shall not be infringed"

This quote is still there. Theres only one interpritation of it, the literal one.

felons loose rights

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"][QUOTE="megahaloman64"]

"The right to bear arms shall not be infringed"

This quote is still there. Theres only one interpritation of it, the literal one.

megahaloman64

felons loose rights

felons loose rights

megahaloman64

Not their first amendment rights.

[QUOTE="megahaloman64"]

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"] How come felons can't bear arms? If we're going to ignore half of the amendment and take the "literal definition" Felons are still citizens.Ace_WondersX

felons loose rights

The constitustion wasn't made for felons now was it?

Automatic 50-page thread. Anyway, it does mention "a well-regulated militia", which does suggest a national guard-like entity. Uncle Bob in Tennessee in his isolated shack with a M-16 assault rifle and some grenades does not a well-regulated militia make.Engrish_Major

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"][QUOTE="megahaloman64"]

felons loose rights

megahaloman64

The constitustion wasn't made for felons now was it?

[QUOTE="megahaloman64"]

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"] But the constitution clearly said, "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed" 100 years ago, felons didn't lose gun rights, why do it now?ZookGuy

The constitustion wasn't made for felons now was it?

[QUOTE="aransom"]

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]Automatic 50-page thread. Anyway, it does mention "a well-regulated militia", which does suggest a national guard-like entity. Uncle Bob in Tennessee in his isolated shack with a M-16 assault rifle and some grenades does not a well-regulated militia make.Ace_WondersX

[QUOTE="megahaloman64"]

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"] But the constitution clearly said, "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed" 100 years ago, felons didn't lose gun rights, why do it now?ZookGuy

The constitustion wasn't made for felons now was it?

Free Citizens, when felons are on probation, Are they free?

[QUOTE="ZookGuy"][QUOTE="megahaloman64"]

The constitustion wasn't made for felons now was it?

aransom

Death Penalty? Scew this I'm going to Canada.

[QUOTE="megahaloman64"]

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"] But the constitution clearly said, "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed" 100 years ago, felons didn't lose gun rights, why do it now?ZookGuy

The constitustion wasn't made for felons now was it?

According to the constitution, we are allowed to punish criminals as long as its not cruel or unusual. Taking away rights is the only form of punishment we have.

Unless taking away gun rights is cruel or unusual.

It seems to me that one could equally ask why people on the other side completely ignore the first half of the second amendment, which seems to me to be a clear indication regarding the spirit of the law, if not the letter of the law.

GabuEx

[QUOTE="ZookGuy"][QUOTE="megahaloman64"]

The constitustion wasn't made for felons now was it?

aransom

The second amendment, like any other aged book or law, was the law of the day. Sure it worked 200 years ago or so. But does it work today with a growing and more violent population?

BumFluff122

[QUOTE="aransom"]

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]Automatic 50-page thread. Anyway, it does mention "a well-regulated militia", which does suggest a national guard-like entity. Uncle Bob in Tennessee in his isolated shack with a M-16 assault rifle and some grenades does not a well-regulated militia make.xaos

You can't call "the people" the National Guard in the second amendment and "the people" the entire population of the United States in the fourth amendment. It makes the document quite confusing. Of all people, I would think James Madison would understand this.

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"][QUOTE="megahaloman64"]

felons loose rights

megahaloman64

The constitustion wasn't made for felons now was it?

TC, I don't get why you're blurting out all these accusations?

I'm pretty sure criminals don't carry handguns with a permit.

I think a very common problem with most everyone in this thread is that they misunderstand the burden of proof when it comes to State action. If one proposes that the State enact any law, the burden of proof is upon them to show that the state ought to make such a law.

Here's a good example: I hear a lot of people ask "C'mon seriously? Do you really need an Uzi to defend yourself? You can do it fine with a Pistol"

No, that argument does not carry, you are shifting the burden of proof. Its not my job to demonstrate that I need an Uzi to defend myself, its YOUR job to show why I should not be allowed to own an Uzi.

I generally oppose gun control to a reasonable degree. However, I have to admit - seeing the way some of them, *ahem*, proponents of the second amendment go parading around, I don't exactly have any sympathy. Also, Obama is not going to take away yur guns. Get over it.PannicAtack

[QUOTE="megahaloman64"]

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]Automatic 50-page thread. Anyway, it does mention "a well-regulated militia", which does suggest a national guard-like entity. Uncle Bob in Tennessee in his isolated shack with a M-16 assault rifle and some grenades does not a well-regulated militia make.xaos

national guard = military.

Military = government

government /= militia

Who said you needed to be a part of the government to be well-regulated? Private contractors seem to be able to overall be able to regulate themselves quite well, barring a few exceptions that were, like it or not, matched by the conduct of the US military itself.

I think a very common problem with most everyone in this thread is that they misunderstand the burden of proof when it comes to State action. If one proposes that the State enact any law, the burden of proof is upon them to show that the state ought to make such a law.

Here's a good example: I hear a lot of people ask "C'mon seriously? Do you really need an Uzi to defend yourself? You can do it fine with a Pistol"

No, that argument does not carry, you are shifting the burden of proof. Its not my job to demonstrate that I need an Uzi to defend myself, its YOUR job to show why I should not be allowed to own an Uzi.

danwallacefan

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]I generally oppose gun control to a reasonable degree. However, I have to admit - seeing the way some of them, *ahem*, proponents of the second amendment go parading around, I don't exactly have any sympathy. Also, Obama is not going to take away yur guns. Get over it.danwallacefan