Why do liberals misinterpret the 2nd amendment?
Well, first of all, no gun control law has ever caused a drop in crime, whereas almost all of them, world-wide, have lead to crime increases. Even in Ireland, where murder was almost unheard of, after gun-control was enacted the murder rate climbed almost 100%. The second amendment clearly differentiates that the need of a well regulated militia is necessary, but the right is inherent to the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. As Jefferson said, "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." More specifically, gun control is not a crime deterrent (criminals are already breaking the law; what's one more law? It's not as if constricting a law changes economic demand, and wherever there is demand, regardless of law, there will be a mechanism to fill that demand; case in point: how easy is it to get marijuana in the US?) As to having machine guns? I'm all in favor. Under no circumstances should a criminal have more firepower than you. I think an H&K MP5N would be a great home defense weapon, but right now, kind of illegal...
Liberals, why do you try to misinterpret the 2nd amendment?
The 2nd amendment and it sends a straightforward message. “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.” The purpose of the amendment was so that civilians could have arms (not just guns) in order to protect themselves from an out-of-control government. Notice that it says people, not soldiers. Some leftists that I came across try to argue that it only applies to the military, since the 2nd amendment uses the term "well regulated militia". However, anyone who knows the history of the revolutionary war (and that period in general) knows that ordinary citizens banded together, organized themselves, and fought against the British. That is what the founding fathers meant by the term “well organized militia”. A “well organized militia” clearly does not equate to a standing professional army that is controlled by the government. Another misconception is that the 2nd amendment applies only to guns. Where in the 2nd amendment do you see the word gun? It uses the term “arms” so that common people would be able to possess all types of arms that would exist in the future. It also states that such weapons are to be used for the preservation of a free state. This means that people should have access to weapons of war (machine guns, armor piercing rounds, explosives, etc). Anyone who knows a little world history is aware of the fact that governments sometimes fail. Sometimes they collapse, sometimes they oppress their people, etc. The United States is not immune to those things. For example, a major natural disaster (such as a world-wide endemic flu or a Yellowstone eruption) could knock the government off its feet. That being said, it’s very clear that the government’s gun control measures are unconstitutional. Such measures only prevent law-abiding citizens from bearing arms.
The 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th Amendments are Individual Rights guarnteed in the Constitution.?
Ointment how about this quote: The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. … Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them." Thomas Paine Does this sound like the author of Common Sense believes the 2nd Amendment is a collective right. Now I am just destroying you
What is the purpose of the 10th amendment?
to limit the government.
Amendments 9 and 10? confused?
Im doing a worksheet for my US history class and i don't really understand what amendments 9 and 10 mean. I'm given 10 examples of a situation and I'm supposed to put which amendments goes with it. I'm down to two statements and I'm sure its either amendment number 9 or 10. The statements says, "Liz is accused of murder and given a trial. The jury finds her innocent. The prosecutor is unhappy with the verdict, has the police arrest her and recharge her with murder." The second statements says, "Chris lives near a factory that emits thick, black smoke into the air. He holds a meeting at his house to discuss action. The police show up and arrest them."
What the cracker are liberals??
you have heard of democrats and republicans well there are also conservatives and liberals conservatives and liberals are ways of thinking anf more people would identify themselves as conservatives or liberals than republicans or democrats liberals are ussulally democrats and conservatives are ussually republicans i am a proud conservative if u want to know what each believes either ask another question of email me and i wll tell you
Why do liberals misinterpret the first amendment of the Constitution?
This phrase "separation of church and state" originates from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote after the Constitution was written. He wrote it to a pastor to explain that the government will stay out of their religion. Liberals have taken that phrase, and the First Amendment, and bastardized the meaning in their jihad to drive any reference to God out of all government property and writings. And if it makes any difference, old TJ wasn't even one of the Framers of the Constitution to begin with.
Why is the second amendment more important to Republicans than all the other parts of the Constitution?
Seen from outside the US some of the arguments for 2nd amendment gun ownership given here and alsewhere sound extremely odd. The 18th century admonition to establish a militia to protect against the untramelled military might of the State has long been superceded by 300 years of technology.Long ago, allowing guns to fall in the hands of ordinary citizens may well have meant they could match the firepower of a standing army and deter its tyrannical use, but in the modern era, when push comes to shove, that is hardly going to be achieved by allowing the general public access to firearms. In order to deter abuse of State military power in any meaningful way you would need to allow public access to heavy weaponry/artillery - and even nuclear weapons - yet I doubt even the most rabid right-winger would seriously advocate that.It doesn’t appear to me that free access to lethal weapons has made the US any safer from political oppression and control than nations with strict gun control like my own. The main practical difference that gun ownership seems to have produced is the extraordinary rate of violent death in the US compared with other developed nations - more than three times that of the UK for example and comparable with some unstable third-world societies.The whole point of guns is that they are an efficient method of killing - I have yet to hear of a drive-by stabbing, or someone accidentally taken out by a stray pen-knife. It is therefore self-evident that the greater access you allow to handguns the greater danger of a high death rate for all citizens of the relevant society, whether the victims are criminals or law-abiding.I’m afraid I find the idea that gun control radically increases the chances of government oppression far-fetched to say the least. Saudi Arabia has one of the highest rates of private gun ownership in the world and I doubt anyone would describe that country as a beacon of human rights and freedom for the individual citizen.It does seem that the love affair of some Americans with guns shares the characteristics of any other love affair - i.e the appeal to emotion over reason.