Why does Biden and Obama want to take away the rights of the second amendment?

Question

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

http://blackgunowners.lefora.com/2008/08/25/he-must-not-be-elected/page1/

http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/04/16/a-double-standard-anti-gun-politicians-and-their-gun-toting-bodyguards/

Answer 1

It's hard to say no to tyrants once the guns have been taken away. The very reason we have the 2nd Amendment.

Answer 2

They doesn't.

Answer 3

"The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. "

~ Barrack Obama Aug. 28 2008

....sounds like a pretty good way to deal with BOTH sides of the issue.

Answer 4

A militia is an ORGANIZED body, answerable to and regulated by the state government.  It is NOT a Private Little Army!

Answer 5

Last time I heard Obama speak, he was defending the Second Amendment. Check the text of his acceptance speech.

Answer 6

they want us weak and vulnerable.  that is the only way they can accomplish their agenda.

Answer 7

Because you can hurt yourself.

Answer 8

Obama has specifically said the opposite.  

Answer 9

Easier to set up a police state that way.

Answer 10

this is false propaganda. he supports the second amendment..go to obamas site to learn the truth..and quit spreading these lies  you backwoods redneck un-educated gun nuts!

Answer 11

Senator Obama stated in his acceptance speech that he knew the difference between personal gun ownership and taking the AK47s off the street. He has said over and over again and is known for meeting with groups to resolve problems. Don't buy the hype, he won't do that. He knows the constitution, he taught it.

Answer 12

You do realize that when these rights were written up...they had nothing even remotely close to the kinds of weapons people use now.  I seriously doubt they would have thought that you need a semi automatic or a big game shotgun...or that there would be so many many crazy morons out there running around shooting people/children whenever they had a psychotic fit.  

And how about the ammo nowadays...exploding types the literally shred you up inside..as if being shot isn't bad enough.

I'm sure if our founding fathers had a crystal ball....there would have been major changes/adjustments made.

Answer 13

they dont

they wont

dont believe the disinformation

Answer 14

For the same reason idiots in Congress want to ban firearms that they know nothing about.  Watch the silly video >>>  The politicans want to disarm our country to have us unprotected and helpless, so that someday they can put us in concentration camps.  ABSOLUTE and TOTAL CONTROL!!!!!!!!  Buy your firearms and pass the ammo, because the S%&T is about to hit the fan very soon.  

http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play...

Answer 15

As far as I understand Obama has stated that he is for local ordinances deciding gun use by lower levels of government as a DC needs tighter gun regulation than rural Alaska which is why federal law on this matter doesn't make sense.  I haven't heard him say that he'd make any sweeping firearm regulations at the federal level so the only people who really could remove your second amendment right is your local government.

and your local govt though perhaps restricting your use of a firearm can't completely remove the right because of the 2nd amendment.

Answer 16

The right to bear arms....

i fail to see fire arms...guns, bombs, nukes...swords

I dont see fully auto M60's named....

So you're saying...it's my 2end amend. right to have a full size Nuke in my celler?

please

smart people should be able to agree on limitations that better serve all that suit all....don't you think?

Answer 17

because they're democrats and they misread the constitution as bad as republicans do. they all want to take away our liberties, it just depends on which ones they see most fit to get rid of. in all cases, its generally in the name of public safety or national security.

"those who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety."

-Benjamin Franklin

Have none of you anti-firearm people read the DC v Heller decision? I know you don't agree with the ruling, but at least read the decision to keep from being ignorant. I mean, I'm voting for McCain but I still listened to Obama's speech. I'm unaffiliated and I plan on hearing both sides so my vote is an informed one. At least read a few quotes from the decision:

T]he operative clause [of the Second Amendment] codifies a ‘right of the people.’ The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase ‘right of the people’ two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology . . . . All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not ‘collective’ rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a ‘right’ attributed to ‘the people’ refer to anything other than an individual right. . . . In all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention ‘the people,’ the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. . . . Justice Stevens is dead wrong to think that the right to petition is ‘primarily collective in nature.’”

“In United States v. Miller, we explained that ‘the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.’ That definition comports with founding-era sources. . . . Petitioners take a seemingly narrower view of the militia, stating that ‘[m]ilitias are the state- and congressionally-regulated military forces described in the Militia Clauses.’ Although we agree with petitioners’ interpretive assumption that ‘militia’ means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment, we believe that petitioners identify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. . . . Although the militia consists of all able-bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them. Finally, the adjective ‘well-regulated’ implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.

On the Court’s Decision in United States v. Miller (1939)

“The judgment in the case upheld against a Second Amendment challenge two men’s federal convictions for transporting an unregistered short-barreled shotgun in interstate commerce, in violation of the National Firearms Act, 48 Stat. 1236. It is entirely clear that the Court’s basis for saying that the Second Amendment did not apply was not that the defendants were ‘bear[ing] arms’ not ‘for . . . military purposes’ but for ‘nonmilitary use.’Rather, it was that the type of weapon at issue was not eligible for Second Amendment protection. . . . This holding is not only consistent with, but positively suggests, that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms (though only arms that ‘have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia’). Had the Court believed that the Second Amendment protects only those serving in the militia, it would have been odd to examine the character of the weapon rather than simply note that the two crooks were not militiamen. Justice Stevens can say again and again that Miller did ‘not turn on the difference between muskets and sawed-off shotguns, it turned, rather, on the basic difference between the military and nonmilitary use and possession of guns,’ but the words of the opinion prove otherwise.

On Arms the Second Amendment Protects

“We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase ‘part of ordinary military equipment’ could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s ‘ordinary military equipment’ language must be read in tandem with what comes after: ‘[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.’ The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms ‘in common use at the time’ for lawful purposes like self-defense. . . . Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. . . .

“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service-M-16 rifles and the like-may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

Answer 18

Gun control is usually more about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and preventing deadly accidents than it is about restricting ownership in general.

Gun manufacturers overproduce guns and glut the market with them. Many guns then end up in the hands of criminals, and guns that are confiscated as murder weapons by the authorities are always destroyed after being presented as evidence. The manufacturers then have less competition with their own existing stock, increasing their sales and profits.

The gun makers are the real driving force behind organizations like the NRA. They're protecting their profits by using these front organizations to claim that everyday citizens need unrestricted access to deadly and exotic weaponry.

Answer 19

They don't want to take away the rights of the 2nd amendment. They just want stricter gun laws. Hence, making it harder for criminals to get their hands on a firearm.  

Answer 20

Has Obama ever said he wants to violate the 2nd amendment?

The president must uphold the constitution.  However, a better question  and homework for you would be to list all constitutional amendments that Bush has trampled.

Answer 21

Then why do you need an AK47 or an Uzi or a MAC-9. Are you expecting a Kodiak bear to break in?