The way I interpret the 2nd Amendment is ONLY the Military and the Police are permitted to carry guns?
When President Obama takes office will he have the same view and outlaw gun ownership,,, and how is he going to take the guns off all Americans?
trubadou,, maybe its a good time to re-write the constution to bring it up to date to modern times
Trustee, The Supreme Court is just waiting untill a Democrat is elected so they can retire, then the Democratic President can appoint almost all new people to the court
Jake, you’re right, Obama isn’t stupid, right now he’s saying what you wanta hear just so he can get elected, then when he takes office, he changes his mind and do what he wants and pays off favors
lestero, Ater Obama is President there won’t be any republicans in both houses to vote against his wants and needs, the next Congessional Election all republicans will be voted out
people are mad about the 0 Billion bail out of Wall Street and everybody blames the republicans
Posted in military guns
March 12th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
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/government/mitary/police. How is that possible?
People need to stop trying to interpret the bill of rights and just READ them.
Militia is defined as a group of normal citizens, not professional soldiers. Militia is not financed by the government, the Army is.
Isn’t it funny that Obama is coming from the same area that many of the polititians are corupt, in jail, or on their way to jail. Come on.
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms … disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity … will respect the less important and arbitrary ones … Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants, they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." — Thomas Jefferson
See that is the problem with rewriting the Constitution…Then they can change anything they want including one of the Amendments that you may use, like the freedom to religion or speech.
http://www.youtube.com/user/DOUGandFRIENDS
March 12th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
He’s not taken mine.
March 12th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
its because all the liberals aren’t true Americans and want to rip of the Constitution
March 12th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
The Supreme Court interprets it differently. Obama is against private ownership of guns and if elected, and if he makes two Court appointments as is anticipated, your interpretation may be the one we will have to live with.
I do not, however, see private citizens giving up their guns. There is a lot of truth to that slogan that if guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns. I want to keep the thugs and gangbangers away from my front door and if they know that I don’t own any guns (which I don’t, by the way) then the fear factor of getting their butt shot off goes away. I would like to keep them guessing.
March 12th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
No, I’m sure Obama is smarter than you so he knows how to interpret the 2nd amendment so he wouldn’t do that. Plus the fact that he won’t be elected President pretty much guarantees he won’t.
March 12th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
You’re an idiot! First, the closest Islamobama is going to get to the Whitehouse other than the Senate is going to be lawn boy…Secondly you need to review the most recent Supreme court decision!
The 2nd Amendment is not negotiable!
March 12th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
Try Rereading the 2nd ammendment. Read very very carefully and slowly for a simpleton mind to comprehend that the right for free citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It does not say "free citizens" but it does mean that legal residents of a the nation keep and bear arms not only to protect agains foreign invasion, criminals, and wild animals, but also to keep the government in check by providing the people with SOME power. The government has the better arms and always will but if you cannot disarm the people, you cannot control them. Disarming the citizens is the first step toward a new type of Fascism! Wake up dude!
March 12th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
Your interpretation is wrong and the Supreme Court says so.
Each President has tried to stack the Court with his people, but getting someone to vote your way doesn’t always work, and after the Demos blocked hundreds of judge ships, I think the Rep. might use pay back for a Dem. appointment.
You should remember that only honest people obey the laws and if you ban guns the criminals will not turn their guns in and the number on the street will not be reduced.
March 12th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
I hate to say this but if guns get outlawed then only outlaws will carry them. I will be one of them. It’s my right and my sworn duty to protect my country against any and all foreign and domestic enemies, and if my ex-husband shows up and tries to kill me and kidnap my kids again I will blow his f-ing head off. Screw Obama or any one who has a problem with that.
March 12th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
Only Liberal Scum would interperate the 2nd amendmant that way, You people need to learn there is more to life than being a vegetarian and carrying picket signs. There is no way people are going to give up their firearms.
March 12th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
The constitution isn’t up to be interpreted the way you think it should be or what it should mean. What it says in black and white is what it means. After State, the word "and" is implied so it says two things, keep a militia and let the people have guns.Not keep a militia and let the people (in the militia) have guns. That would be redundant. Everyone knows a militia would have guns in the first place.
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.
March 12th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
The US Supreme Court recently killed the left wing DC law that forbid handgun ownership for it’s residence. The Court clearly believes that the 2nd Amendment is for for private citizens.
Obama made a comment that he sympathized with the people who lived in high crime areas and faced gun violence after the ruling came out. Personally I sympathize with people that live in a high crime area and faced violent people and their government would not allow them to legally possess the means to protect themselves for all those years.
Obama is a left wing menace and I hope people quit drinking the cool aid and realize he’s a hack. Hitler made good speeches but it did not make him a good leader.
March 12th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
Your view is mistaken. "President Obama" is a fairly remote possibility anyway and the odds that he’d risk civil war by destroying the Constitution are practically nil.
March 12th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
Your reading is incorrect.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that "the People" in the 2nd Amendment means exactly the same thing it means in the other Amendments: everyone.
If you look at the wording, it states that "a well regulated militia" is needful for freedom’s sake (the reason for the amendment/supporting clause), but it also says "the right of the People" to own and carry guns will not be infringed (main clause/the actual rule/law). It does not say the Militia can own and carry weapons, it says "the People".
It is also important to realize that by "Militia" the Founding Fathers meant "the whole of the People", and not the reserve components of the US Military. Article 2 of the Constitution allows for the military.