Why can the constitution give people moral rights?
Do you know why they called the United States of America "The Great Experiment?"... ...Do you know why it was considered such a farce by some of the Old World thinkers.... and was understood to be such a threat by many others...? Here's a hint: Read the Constitution...I mean REALLY read it... Tell me if you notice something... especially in the core Bill of Rights.. Many people seem to have the impression that the U.S. Constitution is some kind of list of Commandments like those Moses brought down from the Mountain... They seem to think that it is some kind of rule book or Code of Laws.. it is actually anything but... Read it.... and understand that it actually expresses all the things the Government CANNOT do to infringe upon the NATURAL RIGHTS of citizens. Government CAN'T restrict Free Speech.. Government CAN'T regulate Religion... Etc. Imagine that... A nation founded upon the notion that The People could be wise enough to govern themselves WITHOUT a king or emperor or other "divine authority" to TELL them what to do... For the Old World, the idea of giving "peasants" access to BOOKS was as dangerous and foolish as you consider the right to possess guns today. Your belief that you know what is best for public safety is no less firm and sourced from no less an arrogance than the Aristocracy who deemed themselves the "betters" who should rule the lives of others. You have to understand how truly Revolutionary that notion was....and REMAINS... Think of all the many revolutions before and since... How many of them created over two centuries of growth, progress and success? This is the point: The Constitution does NOT "grant" anything... instead, it says that humans are BORN with innate rights.. among them the right to self defense, self reliance and self determination.... what is more a symbol of these things than the American traveling into the Frontier with his family and his gun, no Lord to serve but the one of his own choosing?
Why do people have the right to bear arms?
The right to bear arms was made part of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, so that, even if a corrupt government or foreign power took over, and had control of the military, the people would be able to organize "a well-regulated militia" and defend themselves. It is interesting to note that Japan did not attempt to invade the continental United States during WWII, because they knew that the people should be considered armed.
Is Obama and Clinton's call for gun control while having armed security hypocritical?
No. Personal security and gun control are two separate issues. You could be prohibited from having a firearm but that doesn't mean that the state couldn't permit or license certain individuals to carry guns in the performance of their profession. For example, the common citizen is not permitted to purchase explosives, but if you were to work in the fireworks industry you probably could get licensed to purchase explosives (I'm not an expert on explosives or fireworks, this is just an example). Using that example, would it hypocritical of the Obamas and Clintons to support "explosives control" when they watch fireworks on the 4th of July?There are too many guns, and this is not a real issue. Hillary is playing to her base and the NRA is not seen favorably in that base. Once the primaries are over, I wouldn't be surprised to see her soften up and come back to the center to appeal to the more voters. She will be in favor of more gun control but she won't support total confiscation.
What will happen if Donald Trump declares martial law?
This kind of question is why so many people refer to Trump Derangement Syndrome. First, there is not even a hint that Donald Trump would even think of Martial Law. Hillary, yeah I could see that, but not The Donald.But more to the point, the person asking the question does not seem to grasp the situation. For example, a sitting President cannot be indicted. That’s the whole reason for the impeachment process - the founding fathers recognized that a President’s enemies could interfere with the nation’s business by simply raising indictment after indictment, so you can;t indict a sitting President. So that’s out (yes, a President can be indicted after he leaves office, but there are reasons that never happens - think about Nixon, and anyway after he leaves office he wouldn’t be President, so there you go).But yes, Trump could be impeached. That happened to Bill Clinton, you know. The thing is, there is zero chance the Senate would convict Trump. Some of that is because all the Democrats have is bad-sounding accusations, which wouldn’t stand up in any legal proceeding, but also because the Republicans have a majority in the Senate, where any trial after an impeachment would take place, and it takes 67 votes to convict and remove a President. That has never happened yet in American history, and for all the wailing spite from the Left, Donald Trump is not even in the twenty worst Presidents. Seriously, if they did not convict Andrew Johnson or Lyndon Johnson, Andrew Jackson or James Buchanan, then there is simply no way a group of sound-minded Senators will remove Trump from office.What that means is that you’re not going to force Trump out of office, and believe me, he knows that very well. Trump also has tons of money to retain some of the best legal minds in his defense if he needs to.Just stop this paranoia, it’s not good for you at all.
I know Hillary Clinton and others have expressed a desire to repeal the 2nd amendment. Why can't I find that in Google?
Alright, I'm going to start off by saying that I reported this question for being insincere. It is a very, VERY insincere question because it assumes to have some amount of validity in it. It doesn't. Not one bit.Hillary Clinton does not want to repeal the 2nd Amendment. She wants to limit the number of weapons out in the general public that gets in the hands of criminals and mentally disabled people extremely easily. Whether you think such a thing is efficient is up to debate (and has no conclusion since Congress refuses to run tests or polls on this issue, making claims from both sides incomplete), but Clinton does not want to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Even if she did, she would not be able to on her own. It would require Congress and, right now, Congress has a Republican majority.Strange how despite how much you apparently use Google, you were unable to get such an answer as I have given. And that is why your question is insincere, it's loaded, fallacious, and quite blatantly has a lie within it.-------------------------------------EDIT----------------------------------------------Two individuals felt like having some big discussion about whether or not we should support gun regulations was a good thing. Sorry, but since this sort of discussion was a) full of ad hominems towards one another that added nothing to the discussion and b) did not pertain to the discussion of the question asked or the answer given whatsoever, I have decided to block comments until I believe people are mature enough to actually discuss issues either without unnecessary rudeness or until we can actually discuss the topic asked in the question. So apologies to those who wished to reply to my answer, I should reopen comments within the next few days.