So what makes the 2nd Amendment so sacred?

The 1st Amendment of the US Consitution is apparently up for debate...
http://kottke.org/12/12/roger-ebert-on-the-medias-coverage-of-school-shootings

The 4th Amendment can be suspended to pursue a political objective...
http://www.jeffersonconservatives.com/2010/04/28/arizona-and-the-fourth-amendment-u-s-constitution/

The 5th Amendment need not apply either, apparently...
http://www.sundaylaw.net/books/other/standish/liberty/litb08.htm

The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution is also not good enough...
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20027553-503544.html

A lot of people seem to believe that gun-toting keeps the government honest, for fear that people will rise up against any government that no longer acts in the best interests of the people represented. It seems to me that it's mostly GOP contradicting civil liberties, not the current administration.
As for any president's incentive to serve the public, I believe the POTUS requires the support of his party, the party needs to be electable in future elections, keeping the voters happy is what makes the party electable. Nothing to do with guns.

As for my initial question, could the GOP dramatized profile of the 2nd Amendment be due to the power (money) of the gun lobby (NRA), paid for by gun manufacturers with money taken from the very people whose rights get minimized by the GOP?

Discuss.

 

That's funny. Wasn't it Obama who signed the NDAA into law? Isn't he the one who orders drone strikes on American citizens accused of terrorism, without a trial? Wasn't it Attorney General Eric Holder who said, before congress, that the constitution does not guarantee judicial due process? Democrats are just as guilty as robbing us of our civil liberties as Republicans are.

You've made my point for me. What happens when the government is out of control? What happens when you're given only two choices between candidates who have largely the same views, and none of those views are your own? What happens when the government begins passing tyrannical laws (patriot act, NDAA) and the checks and balances designed to stop them, don't? That's when you need to Second Amendment.

 

I consider the constitution to be very important, all of it. The abuses in the OP, has well as many other abuses, are sad but not a reason to just give up and allow even more of our rights to be removed. The war on drugs and war on terror were excuses to remove the rights of citizens. They are a waste of money, lives, and most of all our freedom. To add a war on violence or guns, what ever they decide to call their power grab is just as futile. Far more children and women would be spared a needless death if they would end the other two bogus conflicts. They would not be upper middle class whites so doubtful their lives are important to our leaders or the people who vote for them.

The 2nd is no more or less important than the rest of the constitution. The constitution is the contract that binds the states and people to the US, if they can not honor the rights it grants us, then we should have no legal bond to the US either.

 

I dont care one way or the other for the constitution. some amendments are good and i like em, some amendments i dont.

having said that. the 2nd amendment is EXTREMELY important. the right to proper self defense, and proper defense of your house and family is essential. thats why im opposed to amending the 2nd amendment

anyways, your point kinda makes no sense. there already has been limits on the rights to bear arms. so the 2nd amendment has already been altered in a way.

 

You can not just pick and chose what parts you wish to follow. We are bond by a contract both people and government. You either obey the entire agreement or you are breeching the contract. There is a process to change the constitution, judging by your name I can possible guess the main issue you have. The odds on changing that are the same as changing the 2nd=0%. To change it any other way is wrong.

 

They are not sacred; rather nothing more then words on a piece of paper which people agree to abide by.

 

its just a piece of paper signed over 200 years ago.... and yeah i can pick and choose, since thats what im doing and thats what our government officials have been doing since the creation of the constitution.

 

It is a legal binding document, yes the government does abuse it at whim. You are entitled to disagree with it, you have no choice but live by it and every law passed under its authority. Well I guess you can till you get caught, then you are a criminal.

The bible was wrote over 2,000 years ago by people with far less intelligence than our founding fathers, if I have to pick some old dead guys to have to live by I will go with the ones I am required by law to obey.

 

Let us first define the National Defense Authorization Act, since you make it seem like this is Obama's creation... The NDAA is a federal law which is passed every year; it designates the budget and expenses of the U.S. Department of Defense. The most controversial provision of this latest edition allows for the prolonged detention allows for the detention of an individual without a charge or trial. That much is true. It should also be noted that this is a carry-over of policy that was enacted and implemented during the GWB administration - remember John Walker Lindh? The fact that Obama has maintained this policy rather than doing away with it is disappointing, but seems to be a concession in response to criticisms from the right about weakening the military.

As for drone attacks causing the death of 3 US citizens... You've got to be joking.
3 citizens die while in Yemen and this is cause to blame the current administration and their systems, but 20 young kids can die in a suburban school and there can be no accountability directed at the gun culture in the US?

 

In what way does having a firearm make your home or family safer? Are there statistics that demonstrate that gun owners have their homes broken into less frequently than non-owners? No.
Are there statistics (and a whole lot of common sense) to say that having a gun in your house greatly increases the chance that your kids will be killed in an accidental shooting? Yes.

Let's look at a scenario:
If I was a thief and wanted to break into your home, I would get to decide when to do it. I could do it when you're not home, in which case your guns serve only as loot and will end up creating more crime. If I chose to break in while you're home, I'd simply ring your doorbell at dinner time with a gun in my hand... If you aren't in the habit of answering the door gun-barrel first, I've got the drop on you and your guns do not good at all.

 

i obey neither..... yet i am still Christain and i am still American. seriously though.... theyre both just books/pieces of paper. the constitution has been changed hundreds of times. your ttheory makes no sense. if that were the case it would have never been change even once. sure i follow the constitution now, i dont go around TRYING to break the law. doesnt mean i agree with all of it and doesnt mean i wouldnt like to see some parts of it changed.

 

I live in a huge "Outdoors" family, We have always had guns (rifles and a few handguns)
We have had our house broken into once and they took 2 shotgun rifles and a case of ammo (My step dads really into hunting)

The thing is , The day they broke into the house, I would of felt a lot safer grabbing a rifle regardless of what he was carrying (pistol/knife) Because scatter guns are point and shoot. I had luckily decided to go have lunch with my grandmother that day. But I think if you are in the home a weapon of some sort is better then no weapon.

This might make one if they make a list with all registered gun owners homes. lol What criminal wants to possibly get to a house with armed people inside. lol

So parents not showing their kids that guns are dangerous should play no roll in proper teaching of gun safety?

I can say owning a knife in the house my neice's might slice their own throat all knives should be banned.
I have a ballpeen hammer and they could brudgen each other to death those should be out.
I have a motorcycle helmet, those can be used to smash someones face in and they might do it Ban those.

I am just copying the quote from another forum that they talk about these "blunt type weapons"

I like your scenario because its true you as a theif would get to choose but then "Responsible" gun owners also need to think lockbox, safe, hide the gun, I purchased my first pistol (Regent R100 LOVE IT!!) and I know my neices come over on the weekends and usually once during the week. I dont leave my pistol unattended on the kitchen table for them to be able to play with it (If your thought is responsible owners leave guns out you need to think about it) I store mine in a lock box and hide that where I can get to it and no one will give it a secound glance apart from that I also own a bulldog (The animal not the gun) that usually deters people from comeing over (sweetest dog but they also look grumpy)

There is a picture I have seen that floats around now and then "If you outlaw guns, only outlalws will own them"
This is true, I can legally carry a knife and do so, I have friends who only carry guns, in a situation thats life or death a gun will not always come into play. Your brain is your weapon, your gun is a tool.

I Work at a School District and if someone comes in I have no access to a firearm we have from what I have seen 3 officers who are armed (Great people too) and I dont carry a knife but worst comes to worst a knife heavy plastic pen can be used as a knife, A computer monitor can be used as a large blunt object. you can always move a cabinet to block someones way, copy machine with wheels is a large moveing blunt object as well. As long as you look around you can think of ways to hurt someone or ways to protect yourself.

You can always carry a pair of glasses break an arm off and you have a weapon there,

 

if read my post you would realize that guns provide self defense. not prevention...

anyways by your logic, we might as all line up for criminals to let them gun us down easier. i mean seriously why do you want to disarm law abiding citizens? criminals will still have illegal firearms.... so all this does is put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage

 

The Bill of rights has never been changed. There has been stuff added by the legal method of amendments. There has also been stuff added by activist judges(the part you are possible least fond of for one) I have no issue with the legal method of change. I am not so fond of being changed by whim or activist judges. Since the power for interpreting the constitution is delegated to Supreme court it is technically constitutional I suppose but
the amendment process is safer. That being said I support it all even the parts I disagree with. The bible has been changed far more than any document I am aware of. Not sure how you be christian and not follow the bible. I am not religious but can at least appreciate some of the stories in the bible even if I do not believe them to be the "word of god."

 

its simple. i believe in God, and believe in a lot of stuff in the Bible and Christianity... but not all of it. here are some examples..

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles_of_faith/2009/09/top_ten_worst_b.html

same goes for the constitution. it could be amended, so I would rather see the parts I didnt like slightly Amended IMO. of course through the legal process. it is our right to question the constitution as well as it is our right to have the legal power to change it. so i dont understand why people get so up tight about changing the constitution. because in the constitution it is legal to change it, and it also has been changed hundreds of time. that being said, just because i disagree with a current law/amendment doesnt mean i would disregard it. Of course follow the rules that doesnt mean i cant actively try to change them, which is legal by the constitution

 

Red herring. We're talking about the Constitution and the liberties guaranteed to us by it. We are not talking about gun culture in the U.S. or the accountability of it. The fact is, Obama killed U.S. citizens without giving them proper due process. You don't deny this so you try to divert it. Democrats are just as guilty of violating the Constitution as Republicans are.

 

You' re right..

2nd amendment and the Constitution isn't important to Communists. It gets in their way of destroying a country.

 

Those who grossly change and distort the orginal meaning of the document I would call "Constitutional Rapists."

All progressives/liberals/socialists over the years have not given one hoot in hell about what the orginal intent, wording and meaning of our laws have been.

Words and terms that were obvious as to their meaning back in 1789 like, militia, infringe, speedy, freedom and "cruel and unusual punishment" have been so skewed over the years that they now bear little resemblance. The power of judical review, not even listed in the Constitution, has been horribly abused over the years by progessives. During the 1950's when the dean of judicial activism spoke about what Eighth Amendment's "cruel and unusual punishment" law meant, he famously said:

“the Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.”
Earl Warren quotes

Liberal Democrats have no more respect for our Constitution and freedoms than they do for a roll of toilet paper.

 

Wow, thanks - as always - to "Greataxe" for his educated insight into the minds and motivations of others with whom he has no commonality.
As previously illustrated, it's not just progressives/liberals/socialists that deviate from the Constitution, it's often regressives/conservatives/fascists such as yourself.

BTW, being such a fan of the founding fathers' original intent, what does "well regulated" mean to you?

 

I get that, but wouldn't it be better to work on prevention, since then there would be less need to defend yourself in the first place?

Where do you think criminals get their guns from? Do you believe every young kid who gets initiated into a gang attends a massive training program in which he develops extensive contacts within a black market of international smugglers, or do you think maybe most of them steal guns from "law abiding citizens" in their area? Every year, police seize and destroy thousands of weapons. As long as we keep replacing them, we keep making guns available for criminals.

 

why wouldnt bangers trade/barter for their guns? "Ill Trade you this 9 for that 40" Some people no matter what side of the fence your on will still try and help others even if they know its self destructive.

For instance.

My grandmother helps my uncle pay his tickets even though she knows he is just going to get another one and instead of learning a life lesson about growing up he gets hit tickets paid and dosnt appreciate the help she is giving him.

 

If I wanted to understand the thinking and political motivations of most liberals I would look at the Communist Manifesto.

Most conservatives here in America can look to the orginal Constitution for inspiration. The transformation of America into a communist/welfare state can be placed directly in the hands of democrats and other socialists.

As for myself, not being a pathological, gun-grabbing reactionary, I would say well regulated means organizational regulation. The Founders did not want bands of roving milita units drinking, shooting-up and making trouble. There must be disipline, a chain of command and so on as with regular forces. Here is what they and some others have had to say about it:

http://www.godseesyou.com/2nd_amendment_quotes.html

Yes, yes, I know you believe it's all about the guns themselves. The Founders explained in their militia act about the types of weapons:

By the terms of the Second Militia Act of 1792-----------
The act provides that he should "furnish himself with all the equipment of a private in the infantry, untill proper ordance and field artillery is provided" The Act required Militia Men to aquire weapons that were in common circulation and that individual men would be able to employ, such as Muskets, Rifles, Pistols, Sabres, Hangers, etc. but not cumbdrson, expensive, or rare equipment such as cannons."

The Founders didn't want to force individual citizens to have destructive devices such as cannons because they were "bad"---but because they were heavy, expensive and rare. For the few progessives anti-gunners that believe the Founders wouldn't have wanted their milita members to own assault rifles, their imaginations run something like this:

"President Washington sir, I have invented a rifle that can fire 11 rounds without reloading."

"Anarchist fool," Washington replies, "give me that weapon. Only the military and police should own such a thing. Make it so it can only fire from a 10 round magazine, then they will be safe for you to have at home."

 

So what makes the 2nd Amendment so sacred?

I been wondering about that myself OP. The people who are the most angry about gun control, seem to think that the Government will take their weapons and we will become like the Soviet Union. I had a friend go nuts on me because of my support of gun control. He used Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge as an example of what he thought can happen to America. People like my now ex friend just come across as unhinged and insane. I say ex friend because he decided to end friendships with people who support gun control in any way. Again, I think he is nuckin futs and needs to rethink his priorities.

I just don't see Obama taking all our guns and executing all people with glasses and college degree's. People who think that way do nothing to strengthen their position.

I support the 2nd Amendment. I am 100% against taking peoples guns. But I am for a 10 round limit on rifles, and penalties for owners of stolen weapons that are then used to commit a crime.

 

Each side of the debate has those positions. My own sister is one that thinks all firearms should be illegal. Every group has their extremists and to stereotype one group based on the actions of those extremists is bigoted. I don't believe Obama would execute people, but I do believe he would take all of our guns if given the opportunity. Dianne Feinstein wants to. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRblw29I14U

 

I do not support Obama, but I have more faith in him than you do. Even in this liberal political climate, Obama could never hope to enact a gun ban. Just my opinion though. As for Dianne Feinstein, she represents the far left and still does not have the national clout to pull off a gun ban. Obama is not stupid. He understands how explosive the 2nd Amendment debate is and at best may try to reenact the 90's era gun control law... which would be a useless and impotent move in my view. The 90's gun control failed back then, and it will probably fail if enacted today. But stay tuned... we will see what happens in the next year or so.