TV Schedule

The Constitution is Outdated In This Matter

  2. embed code
  3. image0434
  4. related topics
Please do not use the right to bear arms as your defense...it meant something very different then.
image0434

18 responses // The Constitution is Outdated In This Matter

  • The amendment says 'To insure a well regulated melitia'
    AKA national guard. Beyond that, all guns are fair game for regulation.

    Why do you think the NRA has never gone to court. They know they would loose.
    kanawah
  • Well, who is to say who has the right or "the business" owning one and who does not? I use my guns for hunting/defense. Should I be allowed the keep them?

    I'd like to think so.
    maxama10
  • i understand your emotion and certainly agree that killing, and more important killing when NOT defending your home, is an evil acted upon both parties. but i do have to disagree.

    united states constitution bill of rights amendment II:
    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 original form as ratified dec.15, 1791

    as i see it if they meant only the militia members had the right to bear arms it would have read that way. instead it reads "of the people" also its placement in the bill of rights and not in the articles would seem to suggest that they intended average citizens to have that inalienable right. be it to hunt or defends ones person or home, (it has always been a right of every animal to defend its den and person and kin). or even as the woman in this current editorial suggests ( and our federalist forefathers i think would have agreed) to protect oneself from a corrupt government.
    http://current.com/items/84852551_#86491141

    for many reasons i feel that abridging ANY of our rights, as outlined in the constitution would be an act of self destruction. and that allowing any further erosion of these documents that protect you and i would be foolhardy. that being said i wish that guns had never been invented. and that human beings were not so hell bent on murder and power over others. but in the real world the bad guys have guns. maybe some good guys should too. ironically i dont own a firearm... and dont plan on owning one as i feel killing to be immoral and reprehensible. but i would sooner die than give up ANY of my children's rights, up to and including, the right to bear arms.
    respectfully.
    somefamilylove
  • As a former US Marine I believe if a person wants to own a gun they should be able to. However, I do believe in Gun Control.....I believe there is a misconception concerning "Gun Control" Most people seem to think gun control means prohibiting the ownership of guns...I believe we need to control who has guns and under what conditions we will allow them to have a gun....perhaps require owners to graduate from a weapons handling/safety class in which they must demonstrate proficiency and knowledge in gun safety. Then licence them with a renewal bi annually.....That way if you want a gun you can get one LEGALLY and we can take the guns out of the hands of crimminals!!!!!
    Galileo999
  • If you really think the 2nd amendment was written for the purpose of militia only. Check this quote from one of the authors of the constitution.

    "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764. That was 230 years ago. -Thomas Jefferson

    Even in the 1700's they agreed to the fact that banning firearms from the general population would create more crime than it would stop.
    JoeM
    • JoeM
    • 10 months ago
  • I agree with JoeM. This is not an issue. We already have the right, a lower level law cannot hold presidence over our constitution
    tomboessel
  • youre right a gun is a weapon. It is our only means of self defense if needed. Our forefathers knew that!
    redcloud
  • Oh and one other thing....if you ever need a gun and do not have one....you may never need one again.....
    Galileo999
  • This one issue where I side with gun advocates. First, let me state that I have never owned a gun and never plan to. However, I firmly believe the addage that "if they outlaw guns only outlaws with have guns". Given that it's "outlaws" who commit crimes, taking guns from the general populace will likely have no, or little affect on reducing crime since they (the outlaws) will have found a way to aquire them.

    It's is quite true that guns are used to kill people, but so are knives, blunt objects, automobiles, rope, broken bottles, bows and arrows, rocks, wire, hamemers, axes and a whole host of things that are found in everyday life. The problem is not the weapon but the person that uses it. If you prevent him/her from killing someone with a gun but they use a knife instead, what's been accomplished?

    The issue is much larger than gun ownership, it's societal. We are a nation of some really weird values. Anyone can see someone killed (often is detailed and brutal ways) at almost any time on television, but God forbid that same show features cursing or an exposed breast! For example, ever see "Die Hard" on television? Every bit of killing and gore is shown unedited but they edit out the swearing! The same country that produces and watches some of the most vile slasher movies went all self-righteous when Janet Jackson bared a little breast! Whether we want to admit it or not, despite all the yelling and hollering about violence, our country revels in it. It should be no surprise therefore if some misguided individual sees killing as no big deal or worse, as a way to get attention and make a name for themselves. Our concern about gun violence is meaningless,and frankly narrowminded unless we are willing to face and change our cultural acceptance of violence on any and all levels.
    Mark701
  • Agreed Mark 701.....it is very much like the concept of MAD when evaluating the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Who will be the first to lay down their weapon? How do we start the dialog? I know someone has the answer...
    Galileo999
  • I don't think "wild animals" was on the mind when the constitution was being drafted.
    invalidusername
  • I'm not so sure about the defense against wild animals, haha, but the time period of the constitution is a good point. We have to remember when it comes to this issue, that the constitution was created for a new nation. One that had just established a new government with new laws, after immigrating here to escape repression. Such a small nation depended on it's people to thrive, and stay alive. We were very vulnerable, just as any new nation would be. This was a war fought on American soil. Luckily, we haven't had such a war here in our lifetime. My viewpoint changes drastically when it comes to modern day society however. America was started by very smart, industrious people. It has become, something quite different however. The fact that we went from a barely defendable nation, to a nation that believes it has the right to defend the world is rediculous. We are a nation with backwards priorities. For example it takes an illegal alien at least 4 years to obtain citizenship. There are numerous interviews, tons of paperwork, background checks, etc. On the other hand someone who is old enough to hunt, which in most states is a teenager, can go into a gunstore, and after a background check is completed, can purchase a gun. Seem odd? I'm not saying immigration policies should change, because that is another discussion completely. I am saying however that guns are extremely dangerous, and so much more can be done to keep them out of the hands of irresponsible people or criminals. Taking up peoples time, and making sure they aren't a threat to society isn't against one's rights by a longshot. Allowing a teen to shoot his classmates because he could get a gun easily to do so, is against our right to live free and prosper.
    VegasJames
  • D.C has almost an outright ban on firearms and has had one since 1973! It is still one of the most dangerous cities in the united states. Disarming the law-abiding public only creates victims and sad statistics. The current laws on gun ownership are quite strict but enforcement is lacking I will agree. I will also agree that safety training could be a welcomed requirement. There is a case that will go before the SCOTUS, Heller v. D.C. Gun owners are willing and not afraid to take their case to the S.C. The 2nd amendment states, "The right of THE PEOPLE." "THE PEOPLE" also have a right to free speech. Reporters and journalists endanger peoples lives all the time... should we take away their right to free speech? The wild animals comment is quite laughable. Maybe try that american history class one more time?
    2part2
  • I think as long as your not crazy you have the right to own a gun. I believe in gun control, because guns do have to be regulated to keep them out of the hands of criminals, but it's plain unconstitutional to have an outright ban on firearmsas they did in DC. Some good that's done, DC has the top homicide rate of any city in the nation.
    frankie_of_tempe
  • The right to bear arms is still a valid right because if you take away weapons from the citizens, who does that leave with all the guns? The military and criminals. Guess which countries have fascist governments cycling through again and again? Countries that strip their citizens of weapon ownership.
    aurifex
  • I believe that only police and the military forces of our country should be permitted to own guns. Although I recognize that this would likely throw the guns into a massive black market, I think that should be the ultimate goal of this country. Perhaps this goal can be achieved gradually by first regulating who can buy a gun (I feel strongly about the fact that people have to wait for a backgound check at a store but not at a gun show). I agree with the opinion in this video that states that the second amendment refers to people that lived in a completely different time when police could not extend from sea to shining sea and couldn't enforce law, while citizens were often forced to defend themselves in such cases as a robbery. Now, we have a police force that reaches wide and far and I find it unnecessary for individuals to own guns.
    danielledare
  • Danielle, You are ill informed. Everyone must pass a background check. There is no gun show loophole. There is no legal way for you to buy a modern firearm without going through the process.
    As for the police, they are NOT even required to protect you. They have absolutely no obligation to protect your life. Wouldn't you rather take the responsibility for protecting yourself? I'm also guessing that you have never tried to call the police for help in an emergency. If they even come, it will never be quick enough.
    You are right though, the constitution was written in a different time. If we can get rid of one part, why not a few others? Since I don't like what you have to say, lets start with freedom of speech!
    2part2
  • you frustrate me. no one will probably even read this post, but seriously.

    you think the people who set up that screwy document were worried about bears in the back yard? maybe they were, but seriously man my first point is just that these guys very well understood what it meant to be threatened by a greater power, and that amendment is also there for the people's defense when nobody gives a shit about the common man. i just don't know why it isn't written more clearly.

    the people's right to bear arms... yah i guess they must have just meant the less lethal weapons... like scissors. i don't understand why there's even an argument. if they had intended to say that knives are okay but guns aren't, wouldn't they have written that down? i really hope so.

    lastly, to say the government is dated is like saying, "people have been telling me to look both ways before crossing the street my whole life, drivers must be more cautious nowadays with those fancy SUVs. i'll be fine..." If you're going to live under rule of a constitution, you can't disregard what you don't like or the whole system goes down the drain. and don't just take that in this instance, think of another issue. opinions change. people will always be ignorant. if people changed the rules over and over for 20 years we'd end up with and immeasurable amount of problems.
    innocent_criminal

Add your response

Login/Registration is required to add a response.