Quantcast

'THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED'

Apache 2013/01/10 03:52:57
Yes
No
Undecided
You!
Add Photos & Videos
 THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS  SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • ji 2013/01/10 03:55:21
    Yes
    ji
    +19
    Notice the word "SHALL".

    It doesn't say 'may'....... it doesn't say 'might'.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Devil's Advocate 2013/01/23 18:23:23
    No
    Devil's Advocate
    That is not the whole passage
  • Oaces_boss_yo® 2013/01/14 23:12:24
  • Adam 2013/01/14 01:41:27
    Undecided
    Adam
    I am fine with gun ownership, but I'm sick of the whole, "Well regulated militia" aspect of the second amendment being conveniently ignored. Convenient interpretations of the constitution are about as annoying and common as convenient interpretations of the Bible among fundamentalists.
  • bill.fleming.77 2013/01/13 21:34:02
    Yes
    bill.fleming.77
    +1
    When the word "shall" is used it means it is not an option. It is a must.

    When you read through any government regulation it is always best to go through and highlight the word "shall" those regulations are mandatory. When words like "may" are used it is a suggestion but not mandatory.
  • Wohuz 2013/01/13 11:06:16
    Undecided
    Wohuz
    You forgot the "well-regulated militia" part, as usual.
  • Amasaman Wohuz 2013/01/15 17:53:32
    Amasaman
    +1
    http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volo...

    Most states constitutions do not include this preamble either.
  • Doug Wohuz 2013/01/20 22:15:44 (edited)
    Doug
    +1
    lets explore that for a moment if regulated meant regulated by the gov then why is shall not be infringed part of that same statement. infringement is exactly a gov regulation so would be an oxy moron to say. lets look at other meanings of the word regualted. regulated also means or meant for the authors of that right a well armed well readyed which actually makes more sense than gov regualtions so no he is right your wrong sorry.
  • Wohuz Doug 2013/01/22 08:47:17
    Wohuz
    I never said that's what it meant. I only said he forgot that part.
  • Doug 2013/01/13 05:22:31
    Yes
    Doug
    lol california whasington and oregon are at 100% in agreement but with feinstein cantwell and murry the most infringing people out there lol.
  • bill.fl... Doug 2013/01/13 21:36:52
    bill.fleming.77
    I really dislike my Washington State Senators. But I am able to still carry my registered weapon on the streets. I hope this does not change anytime soon. :-(
  • Dave 2013/01/12 08:08:43
    Undecided
    Dave
    NO - You really can't take a part of the second amendment like that! "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."

    So are you part of a militia?
  • gregory... Dave 2013/01/12 16:38:06
    gregory.brown.5030
    +3
    Each citizen being benefited by the protection of the State, has not only the right but the Duty to protect the other citizens of that state from all enemies foreign and domestic. So, yes. I and every American is part of a militia. Notice the wording of the amendment.
  • Dave gregory... 2013/01/12 17:13:50
    Dave
    Well-regulated militia. So I agree with your point to a degree - but you need to be regulated because without it then you are all just gun-nuts. And that really is dangerous.
  • gregory... Dave 2013/01/12 17:21:26
  • Dave gregory... 2013/01/14 08:35:13
    Dave
    Are you regulated to drive a car? Yes. Is it okay that a person can accumulate massive quantities of bullets without having to answer as to why they are doing so?
  • gregory... Dave 2013/01/14 10:23:38
    gregory.brown.5030
    +3
    Car analogy doesn't work! one is a right, the other is a privileged. concepts 180 degrees opposed to each other. As for bullets then yes. It does not matter why the have them as long as their intent is not to commit a crime. For that matter how would you even know if they have massive amounts of bullets if you had not infringed upon not only their second amendment rights but also their right to privacy? What concern is it of yours how many of anything that a person has?
    why should you care if he has many bullets any more than you care if he has many bottles of wine, or purple pin-strip suits. The bottom line is unless you have evidence that he is going to commit a crime through act or admission then it is simply none of yours or the governments business.
  • Dave gregory... 2013/01/18 05:39:23
    Dave
    You have the RIGHT to belong to a well-regulated militia. That doesn't mean you can own a gun or a gun that shoots 100s of bullets a minute. Geez! And why do you want to own a gun like that? Protection? You are more of a danger to yourself, your possessions, and your neighbors using a gun like that on an intruder.

    I don't care if you have a fetish for collecting stuffed bunny Rabbit toys or collecting guns, but if you are buying massive quantities of bullets in a certain time frame - yeah, I wanna know why.

    When we live in a war mongering society - I think there comes a time to stop acting like psychos and maybe try to restore some humanity.
  • gregory... Dave 2013/01/18 11:16:10 (edited)
    gregory.brown.5030
    +1
    Sure we do. That's why the amendment makes the distinction The rights of the People as opposed to the rights of the Militia to keep and bare arms. Otherwise it would have specified keeping those weapons in the hands of the militia instead of the hands of the people.

    I submit that any argument you use to infringe upon the 2nd amendment could be used to infringe upon the 1st. Suppose I told you that you could not be your religion, but pick another one. It would be the same thing.
  • Dave gregory... 2013/01/19 04:04:38
    Dave
    Trust me - you twist the bible just as much as the Constitution.
  • gregory... Dave 2013/01/19 11:31:44
    gregory.brown.5030
    +1
    Which would have what to do with the conversation? The conversation is about amendments, not bibles.
  • Dave gregory... 2013/01/19 16:49:14
    Dave
    The 2nd Amendment is clearly not about individuals owning guns, but being in a well-regulated militia. Now in Minnesota we have no provision to that - so the 2nd amendment holds for us.

    In Georgia the provision to the 2nd Amendment is Georgia: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne." (enacted 1877).

    Now you tell me what the heck that means?

    I have no problem with you gun-nuts owning guns to kill with or shoot up targets or pretend that you need them for protection. But how is limiting ammo, bullets per minute, and background checks on people that awful and scary to you people?

    AND - I want a person's ability to sue the NRA in cases like Colorado or Sandy Hook. No other company gets away with this.
  • gregory... Dave 2013/01/19 16:58:09 (edited)
    gregory.brown.5030
    It means that all people may keep and bare arms. That means that all legal citizens shall have the right to keep and bare arms, but the state shall have the right to state certain places (upon their person) where arms may not be carried..

    . . . Mr. Toombs moved "to strike out all after the word 'infringe,' and strike out 'but the General Assembly shall have the power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne,' insisting that 'the Legislature has no power to prescribe how the people shall bear arms; that they shall not carry them in their boots, or anywhere else that they want to. I think the people have the right to keep and bear arms as they choose for their protection."'

    On the other hand, Mr. Warren urged: "I hope the gentleman's motion will not prevail. The experience of all of us is that the General Assembly should have the right to regulate the manner of keeping and bearing arms. There is nothing which provokes bloodshed so much as the indiscriminate bearing of concealed weapons." The motion to amend was lost.

    Other amendments which were offered, but not adopted, were: (a) By inserting the word "place" after the word "manner," so as to give the Legislature the power to prescribe where a man shall carry arms and where not; .It is also clear that the members of the C...
    It means that all people may keep and bare arms. That means that all legal citizens shall have the right to keep and bare arms, but the state shall have the right to state certain places (upon their person) where arms may not be carried..

    . . . Mr. Toombs moved "to strike out all after the word 'infringe,' and strike out 'but the General Assembly shall have the power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne,' insisting that 'the Legislature has no power to prescribe how the people shall bear arms; that they shall not carry them in their boots, or anywhere else that they want to. I think the people have the right to keep and bear arms as they choose for their protection."'

    On the other hand, Mr. Warren urged: "I hope the gentleman's motion will not prevail. The experience of all of us is that the General Assembly should have the right to regulate the manner of keeping and bearing arms. There is nothing which provokes bloodshed so much as the indiscriminate bearing of concealed weapons." The motion to amend was lost.

    Other amendments which were offered, but not adopted, were: (a) By inserting the word "place" after the word "manner," so as to give the Legislature the power to prescribe where a man shall carry arms and where not; .It is also clear that the members of the Constitutional Convention of 1877 were not speaking only about militia arms, such as military rifles, but were also describing small arms that may be carried in a concealed manner, such as in one's boot, that is, concealable handguns. Finally, it is clear that the General Assembly, in adopting the phrase “may prescribe the manner in which such arms shall be borne,” was referring only to the ability of the General Assembly to regulate concealed carry, but not the ability to regulate the carry of arms openly. The General Assembly his proceeded to regulate concealed carry, first by banning it, and, later, by licensing it
    (more)
  • Dave gregory... 2013/01/19 18:00:35
    Dave
    See I have no problem with people having guns - but for my own protection I want to see that you have a gun and I don't want anyone wandering around carrying an AK whatever in a shopping mall. That should be my right too as a person who hates guns. I can appreciate hunting and shooting targets, but Ias a sport - it's no sport. I think a bow & arrow is a sport.

    As protection no one needs an multi-round gun that shoots more than 10 bullets. You aren't protecting yourself or your valuables with something that shoots 100 rounds a minite. All you do is destroy things with a gun like that.

    I also think that people need to be checked out before handling over a dangerous weapon to them. I don't think that this is too much to ask.
  • gregory... Dave 2013/01/19 18:38:18
    gregory.brown.5030
    +1
    No one is denying you your rights, Just don't come stepping on anyone else's. While you may not need something, you can not speak for all people and what they need. In Mn, you may need cold weather gear to survive and protect yourself. Would it be fair to restrict your right to survival because I don't need the same gear in Ga.? I would hardly think so. You may live way out in the country and feel you have no need more than 10 rounds. I may live in the country near a school with police protection more than 45 mins away. I may feel I need more rounds to protect those children if some mass shooter shows up.

    The problem is not the limit on the number of rounds, it is the freedom you would have law abiding citizens give up. If the give up and say Ok 10 round mags then some fool will try to regulate it to 7, then 5 then 1.
    Emotions are no way to make decisions. Look at Como in New York, by letting his emotions rule his decision to limit mags to 7 rounds, he has limited police to only have seven rounds. However the 9mm pistol that issued to Officers in NYC will not take less than a fifteen round mag. Technically, any policeman on duty is now guilty of breaking the law.
  • Dave gregory... 2013/01/20 06:37:08
    Dave
    Okay - here's my position on all this, and I truly am upset by it. Personally I don't care if all you Right Wingnuts have tanks in your backyard and walk around with AK-somethings - even in the grocery store.

    You all talk about freedom and the Constitution, but you don't really care. I'm really big on supporting the Occupy Movement and the environment - something Right Wing nuts laugh at. The reason I support causes liket his is because they understand in order to survive, we need to take back our country.

    Here's what I get from all you Right Wingnuts - you basically ignore everything in the Constitution & the bible, except that you want to keep your gun collections. It's sooo incredibly ridiculous.
  • gregory... Dave 2013/01/20 12:27:02
    gregory.brown.5030
    +1
    I think we are saying the same thing just from different ends of the spectrum. Conservatives, real Conservatives like the Tea party and the libertarians also want to take back our country.We care about the freedom and responsibility of the individual. I for example could never support the Occupy movement because of the callous disregard they have for the rights and property of their fellow man. Here in Atlanta for example, they caused millions of dollars of property damage to the parks they occupied. This is land owner by the very people that they say they are trying to help.

    I too support the environment. for example, I don't hunt much any more, but if the deer or turkey population starts getting out of balance I will help thin the herd. I live on a farm so almost every thing is recycled through either septic tank or reuse.

    See here is what I get from LWNJs'. You basically ignore the conventions of common decency, because you wish to take everyone else's stuff to make your life easier with out working for it.
  • Dave gregory... 2013/01/31 04:18:00
    Dave
    I imagine if we met over a beer, we'd get along. My point is guns aren't the issue regarding freedom. We've already let the government take our freedom when they stopped allowing the media to be honest, corporations to rule, and training people to live in fear or not just terrorists, but their own neighbors. a. lost our freedom.

    The point is no one wants to take away guns - but why would anyone need a gun that shoots 100 rounds a minute? That's not hunting or target shooting.

    What you hear about the Occupy is again corporate propaganda. They've done a lot of good here in Minneapolis - and I know that first hand. They've saved a lot of people from being tossed out of their homes.
  • gregory... Dave 2013/01/31 09:32:28
    gregory.brown.5030
    The question is, at whose expense. I did not get my info about them from the news, but from the official reports. I saw the estimates of how much it would cost to fix the parks here. But that's a side issue. as far as a gun that shoots 1000 rounds a minute, they are regulated and banned for private citizens without a class three FFL and have been since 1934. I would ask, what makes a weapon that fires one round at a time more lethal than a weapon that fires one round at a time? Because that's what we are talking about. Not assault riffles, nor machine guns but semi-automatics that are exactly the same as every other semi-automatic. absolutely no difference at all. Even the US government calls them personal defense weapons.
  • Dave gregory... 2013/02/10 17:16:14
    Dave
    No one is trying to take away one round firing guns like a rifle or shotgun or a pistol.
  • gregory... Dave 2013/02/10 17:24:12
    gregory.brown.5030
    Which has nothing to do with the conversation.
  • Defend ... Dave 2013/02/10 17:36:29
    Defend Western Civlization
    Americans have Rights not needs its up for you or any other democrat to decide what guns Americans own
    your Hero former cop who backs Nazi Gun control and is killing cops will be Slapped down
  • Dave Defend ... 2013/02/10 18:15:47
    Dave
    You gave up your rights as an US citizen with 9/11. All you want to do now is collect guns of any variety. That's not what the Contstition or the 2nd amembment is about.

    I have no idea what that last part about hero cop means. lol

    Also you are mislead by your Right Wingnut media - Hitler didn't tke away the guns. The guy before him did. Thanks.
  • Defend ... Dave 2013/02/11 02:02:08
    Defend Western Civlization
    the 2nd Amendment is about Americans owning guns Period
    Americans knows the Muslim terrorist obama is a JOKE
    Ah another liberal progressive who says the Holocaust Never Happened
    Americans love watching Israel laugh in the face of the Terrorist odumbo the clown
  • Dave Defend ... 2013/02/17 18:15:35
    Dave
    Wow!

    have a sweet day
  • Defend ... gregory... 2013/01/26 20:49:15
    Defend Western Civlization
    +1
    you are wasting your time this is a Hardcore Elite Obama Voter who loves Repression and wants America to be Socialist Dictatorship
  • Defend ... Dave 2013/01/26 20:48:43
    Defend Western Civlization
    +1
    Americans do not care what you want neither does the Constitution
    Americans have Rights not needs
    the 2nd Amendment is about Americans Inalienable right to own guns not about hunting or self defense
    Hitler though people needed to be checked out to see if they were Aryan or as he put it not worthy of being allowed to live
  • Dave Defend ... 2013/01/31 04:28:00
    Dave
    That's what makes your gun fetish so silly. What you really care about is hording guns. You've let your government become corrupted by corporatists, and have had your Consttitutional rights taken away.

    Your Hitler analogy is ridiculous and straight out of the NRA or FOX or Limbaugh - a corporate driven media that lies to you daily, which keeps you living in fear of your government, immigrants, and your own neighbors. No wonder you need your guns.
  • Defend ... Dave 2013/01/31 11:13:29
    Defend Western Civlization
    +1
    what i care about is freedom OBAMA VOTER
    i live in reality
    I have no fear of Legal Law Abiding Immigrants
    i have people in my own family who immigrated from post ww 2 England and Germany
    Americans have INALIENABLE RIGHTS not needs
    so take your Propaganda and go back to Peirs Moragan and tell the LOSER you failed
  • Dave Defend ... 2013/02/10 17:18:42
    Dave
    Well, ROMNEY voter. lol I don't Obama - but I sure the hell couldn't vote for a corporatist.

    Well - you lost me on all the rest of your gibberish, except you don't hate immigrants.

    I guess we agree on somnething.
  • Defend ... Dave 2013/02/10 17:38:04
    Defend Western Civlization
    romney and obama are both liberal progressive
    i only voted for romney cause he was the lesser of the evils
    Americans will laugh in the face of obama and buy what ever guns we want you will have to get use to that
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 27 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/09/01 21:25:16

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals