When did defending the Constitution become something many liberals are against?
Do they even know what the Constitution is for? Or the history behind it?
The Supreme Court will be making a decision on a historic case regarding constitutional gun rights in McDonald v. City of Chicago. And I hear so many libs saying things like only right-wingers would support a ruling in favor of McDonald or something to that affect, mostly likely because their Idol Obama says (or said at one point before he became President) that he supports the gun laws in Chicago, which doesn't even allow you to own a gun in your own home.
The point of the question is why do many liberals (notice I didn't say all) want to see the very doctrine that provides we the people the ability to govern ourselves, to speak our minds, to protect ourselves, and to basically live the way we desire to live, provided you don't encroach on other's rights?
And to liberals here, if what I say it erroneous, please tell me where you stand on the issue and what you think about this Supreme Court case. Thank you.
samsam - Forgive me for saying so, but you just don't know what the hell you're talking about. You show me ANYWHERE in that document where it has ANYTHING racist and I'll shut up. And as far as so-called outdated philosophy goes, the core principles of the Constitution are timeless. You DO know what that means right? The very principles that apply to ALL (black, white, man, and woman). Have you ever heard of an Amendment? These are only further clarifications of these timeless principles that already exist in the document. Are we perfect? Of course not. But we have brought more freedom and prosperity to this world than ANY civilization in history. And we strive to be better as a nation by living up to the principles our founding fathers have established with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Why else do you think our nation has been the beacon of hope and inspiration to so many in the past?
samsam - You really need to stop parroting the erroneous propaganda of progressives and the ignorant. Start studying REAL history and start thinking for yourself. For that matter you probably don't even know what a progressive is. They're not confined to any ideology (i.e. liberal or conservative)
Just start from scratch and do your own homework, and don't allow yourself to be brainwashed by propaganda outlets like dailykos or freedomworks. Judging by the foolish comments you made, there's just too much for me to tell you. Sorry to say but you are woefully naive.
David - You have no clue either. Read the whole thing:
"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 constant display of ignorance, willful or otherwise, is quite tiresome.
spot the cat - In general I agree.
- 1 decade agoFavorite Answer
I'm opposed to sweeping laws banning guns like the overturned ruling in Washington and now the pending case in Chicago. Those criminals who commit crimes with guns are not buying them and Lamar's Gun and Tackle but on the street and a law against guns just works against law abiding citizens.
I do support waiting periods, background checks, bans on citizens owning automatic weapons, bans on certain types of ammunition and I'm very leary of concealed weapons carry laws.
And I own guns.
- tonalc2Lv 71 decade ago
Throughout our history, the courts have *interpreted* the Constitution. That's why it's called a living document.
Chicago laws ban handguns and semi/automatic weapons, not rifles or shotguns. IMO (and apparently not the Court's), the state or municipality has the right to determine its gun laws.
I find it interesting that the Cons defend a state's right to *allow* guns wherever they want, but not to regulate them. Can't have it both ways; either the state has the right or it doesn't.
- samsamskeytiLv 51 decade ago
You know the constitution was founded on racist beliefs? African-Americans were subhuman: every 5 of them counted as 3 human beings. It allowed for slavery, too, and took nearly 100 years to change.
You know the constitution did not guarantee women equal rights to vote? Took over 100 years to change.
The point: sometimes a 200 year old document isn't always correct. The constitution isn't always correct in its absolute entirety when it comes to 21st century issues, and does need some alternate views.
- 1 decade ago
If we were going to interpret the Constitution strictly, as most conservatives pretend to want when it suits their needs, than it's true that every American has a right to bear arms -- provided they are a member of a well-regulated militia.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- spot the catLv 71 decade ago
liberal from ms
i believe that it is a RIGHT to own a gun
it is a RIGHT to use that gun to protect yourself
yes i know the constitution,
the supreme court needs to read it again
IT IS NOT A RIGHT for a corporation to have the same rights as a citizen
- LizLv 61 decade ago
Since Obama took over,he thinks the Constitution is flawed.
- PARVFANLv 71 decade ago
Since BO became President. Peace
- Hmmmmm?Lv 51 decade ago
When we started illegally wiretapping US citizens....my bad, that wasn't us
- Anonymous1 decade ago