How can they enforce gun control "laws" if the constitution clearly say SHALL NOT be infringed?

mark s

They can have my gun when they pry my cold stiff fingers from it and I will take many with me who try to violate my 2 nd amendment (live free or kill those trying to restrain you)

Tammi D

two main reasons:

the government is not always held accountable

some folks want excessive gun control, and lobby for it

Mercenary

I ask my self the same question. the gun laws just keep getting worse. Thank you for your serving

MP US Army

The supreme court is getting ready to see a case on the DC gun ban a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment.

Isn't it Odd how the rights of "the right of the people" in the first amendment refer to the peoples right to free speech, and "the right of the people" in the second amendment refers to the rights of state governments to have a national guard.....I don't think so.

The militia act of 1792 required every white male citizen between 18 and 45 to own a rifle ammo and a back pack so they could be called in to service when needed. They were not paid and trained twice a year.

I would say if you registered for selective service you are a member of the militia.

The only way I would support national service is if it were like this, requiring every male citizen between 18 and 45 to own a 5.56 rifle that accepted standard magazine and a back pack to be called up when needed.

Jen D

this is for the first guy who answered this.. he's CLEARLY wrong:
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms
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.

Says nothing about the right of the people to bear arms being regulated.. it says that a regulated Militia AND the right of the people to bear arm are not to be infringed

Andrew M

Any of the basic rights, including free speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms - none of those are absolute and unlimited. When exercise of any of those rights infringes upon another person's rights, then you reach a limit to the rights.

One can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie house, nor libel nor slander someone. So clearly the right of free speech is not absolute. The same goes for the right to bear arms, which is also entirely couched in the context of being necessary for a "well-regulated militia."

manicbhpp

Welcome to America.......where the powers that be re-write the Constitution to suit their own needs.

rbeeze1

guns are made for killing.for them to be used for killing another human being is inherently wrong. but then again like any other invention they can be used for good or bad. it seems that war/s always further these types of inventions.once invented things can,t be uninvented , so it,s up to the human race to do a balancing act, you may as well say that it was ok to bomb hiroshima , that was just a much bigger gun but it took more ppl out in 1 go do you agree that it was right to use that bomb? if you do agree how do think you would cope with the consequences of your children and grandchildren being born horribly deformed today?
its not a nice thought is it?its history but so is the american bill of rights/ constitution/=inventions=mankind.sorry for ranting thats just my thoughts.
bye

remember me?

I think part of the confusion over what militia is that the military is organized & militia is unorganized civilian men between 18 & 45 who are not members of a recognized Armed Forces.*
Now, when a group forms a 'militia', the government panics & breaks it up, assuming it is anti-unionistic radical group. That is occasionally the case, but not definative in all cases.
The right to bear arms is under attack by liberal, scaredy-cat people who don't want a goverment by the people & for the people, but rather government for it's own sake & their own sense of power.

firewomen

The U.S Supreme Court has never said yes or no to the question of gun ownership. Because they have never ruled definitely the question of gun ownership have been left up to the individually states. Hence the many different laws.

open thoughts

Gun control laws are un-Constitutional, but we have so many liberal judges that they skirt the issue by saying that you can have a gun, but not an assault rifle...thereby not infringing on your right to "bear arms". Give the dems enough time (and the passive nature of the current republicans, and we will all be allowed to have pop-guns.

michele...The Constitution was NOT written to be changed by interpretation, but by amendment.

Carol...how do you think a militia is formed? From the people. There is not currently a need for a militia. So, there is not one, but if we have no guns, and then there were to become a need for a militia, what do the people grab? Rocks and knives? Get a clue. A militia IS MADE UP OF PEOPLE!

BornandB...A MILITIA IS MADE UP OF THE PEOPLE! HOW CAN A MILITIA BE FORMED, IF NECESSARY, IF THE PEOPLE ARE NOT ARMED. This is such a ignorant argument.

CrG...Congress is supposed to WRITE laws, and the courts are supposed to interpret laws. This includes whether NEW laws are Constitutional or not. This DOES NOT include interpreting if the Constitution means something different today than it did yesterday. If the Constitution is to be changed, it is by amendment, not by interpretation of the courts.

Ol'Okie...Great way to put it. Many people confuse militia with military.

Bramst

The can't. They are just trying to disarm Americans like Hitler disarmed Germans. Won't happen.....

ohiofirefighter42

It also says well regulated....or did they allow you to pick and choose which parts you defend?

PS...... I am in no way an advocate of siezing guns, have no issue with citizens owning them, but do think the governemnt has the right to regulate them, for instance convicted felons are prohibited.

gomanyes562

The 2nd amendment first makes a reference to a militia, and a well-regulated militia at that.

You have to read the entire thing, you can't just pick and choose which clauses you want to pay attention to and conveniently ignore the rest.

laughter_every_day

most people recognize that the 2d is the most ambiguous because it is the only amendment that states its purpose. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case, and according to the constitution that you so revere, the judicial power of the United States is vested in the Supreme Court, not its individual citizens. So, if you support and defend the constitution, wait until the judicial branch issues its decision and then we will know whether the 2d gives an individual right and if that right is subject to any limits due to the purpose of the amendment.

tacomadc

First, did you notice that "well regulate" phrase in there? That means laws regulating the right to bear arms, which every State and the Federal government more than have the right to make.
Second, funny thing, the 2nd amendment doesn't mention "guns" or "ownership."
The 2nd amendment was not for overthrowing the government - you are a brainwashed fool.
The 2nd amendment was to provide State militias for the protection of the nation against foreign powers, since there was no national army at that time. Read the damn thing before you comment on it!
If you talk about overthrowing the government, you are a traitor, as was the idiot who wrote the book claiming that.
PS: Jen D, you can't just insert the word "AND" in the Constitution wherever it suits you - it's not there! You're the one rewriting the Constitution!
PPS: I'd love to see anybody provide any evidence that the Nazi's attempted to take guns away from people. I've asked countless times for this on this site, since I'm interested in WWII history, and nobody's ever replied!!!

Big Ed

I grew up in Texas and am retired Army SFC. I am as comfortable with a gun in my hands as I am a fishing pole.

However, I have never understood this argument. Am I infringing on your rights if I say you can't own enough firepower to take over a small country? Am I infringing on your rights if I say you can't own a weapon capable of blowing up a tank. Am I infringing on your rights if I say you can't carry a gun into a pre-school or a church?

No where in the constitution does it say, "Do whatever you want."

Barry C

the 2nd amendment is a poorly wordred, tortured sentence.

It has horrible grammar, regardless of your own particular view, and it is undeniable that the sentence is confusing and not easily decided.

Otherwise, people would actually use that grammatical construction all the time when they want to be understood.

And they don't :)

Gray Wanderer

Illegally.

Read the Second people, before you start making bogus claims. NOWHERE does it state the the people or arms are to be well regulated, it is the MILITIA which is to be well regulated.

Goal: A well regulated Militia,

Reason: being necessary to the security of a free State,

Means: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Very simple, if you read it in English and not Liberalese.

This is upheld by the authors of the Second, such as Tench Coxe;
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
A Pennsylvanian (Tench Coxe), Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia Fed. Gazette, June 18, 1789

BornAndBred

If you actually read the Second Amendment it says that right of a militia to bear arms shall not be infringed. Not individual people. Don't listen to rhetoric; read it for yourself.

Don Drapers woman

Have you actually read the entire constitution regarding gun control??? For a well armed militia, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. So people who say it is their constitutional right to have guns should be part of a militia technically.

Wounded Duck

Read it, then get back to me!

CrG

We have elected Representatives in Congress who interpret the constitution for the good of society. Our courts decide what is right and fair to society as a whole. They still have not got it right but they are moving in the right direction.

The military and police forces are governed just as the general public is.

emucompboy

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.

==
Okee dokey, gun control applies to those who aren't a member of a well regulated militia. Next time you want to talk about the Second Amendment, please quote the whole thing. Thanks for asking.

Aviator - THE Resolution

Technically, the constitution says you have the right to bear arms. And technically a nuclear warhead is considered arms. Do you think that a millionaire should have the right to own a nuclear weapon? Or how about grenade launchers? We reached a point where logic told us that some things need to have restrictions. The intent of the constitution wasn't to give people all the weapons conceivable, it was to give people the right to hunt and defend themselves.

forjj

Its all in the details. the constitution doesn't say that I can't rape your wife and children either....regulating something and infringing rights are two different things...

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: