Gun Control At The Expense of Constitution?

Question

Why do Americans put up with elected politicians who blatantly disreguard the Constitution of these United States?

They should be publicly tarred and feathered and deported to Iran.

Answer 1

Absolutely!

Any politician trying to stop a well regulated militia from toting a gun should be hung!

Now individuals are another matter.

Answer 2

Not all of us agree with it, or will put up with it...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...

Answer 3

The constitution allowed for the bearing of arm in case the British returned. I have checked with reliable sources and they advise me that they are not coming.

Constitutions and Bills of Rights are written for the times.  

Answer 4

I agree...I live in Crook (cook) County IL about 25 away from Chicago...I deal with King Richard and his two court jesters Jessie Jackson and that priest Pfleger every week. Not to mention Guv Blago and NObama's commononsense.

These phrases, "right of the People peaceably to assemble," "right of the People to be secure in their homes," "enumeration's herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the People," and "The power not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the People," all referring to individual people, but "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms," refers to the state. How is that possible.

People need to stop trying to interpret the bill of rights and just READ them.

I would also add that the US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Anything banning firearms would be as illegal as banning the presses and anyone threatening this should be charged with treason. Anybody who serves in Office or any of our soldiers, and police swore to protect the US Constitution in its entirety; not just the stuff they like.

The only rights you have are the ones you are willing to fight for

Comrade Coleman  - 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.

You may want to look up a few of those words used to help determine its meaning....It does not take a Masters to figure it out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ffpdy2O1m...

gottanew1 -  So the other 9 are out dated then too, right?

Answer 5

yep

Answer 6

The Constitution didn't GIVE us the right; it only prevents Congress from infringing the personal right to bear arms. It remains to be seen whether or not the Supreme Court will ever uphold the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in a question of state restrictions of firearms.  Having said that, there are ALSO state constitutions that give the citizens the inalienable right of self defense, including (presumably) lethal force by whatever means are available.  If criminals have guns, then surely the law should encourage the victims to have guns as well.  

Answer 7

  A well regulated militia being nessasary for the security of a free state.,,the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Atricle the forth [amendment II])

  There was no standing army of fderal means for defence and in the day if you owned an 'arm' you became a militia at the drop of a hat...pre draft days

  This all worked well and served the purpose of pushing westward,expanding the nation self defence before local gendarmes came into vouge.

   In those early societies having a gun was like having a cell phone.

  Today if you owned a gun do you think it right for the guv to conscript you because you do

  The 2nd amendment has no relevance in todays world, well maybe in tribal countries but we're past that.

Now it's a question of personal property

Answer 8

it wasn't just in case the british return, it was also to prevent our own government from asserting absolute power over the people, make the government weak and keep the people free.  i do, however, remember the part of the constitution that speaks of the right to bear arms, i do not recall the part about the right to bear automatic weapons or machine guns.  how about some moderation here, i have guns myself but am not seeking to own an assault rifle (what could be the purpose?).  why not just allow heavy machine guns and anti-aircraft weapons to be legally bought if you think restrictions are a bad idea.  some gun laws are patently necessary