Why do Democrat’s hate the constitution?
Specifically the second amendment it’s a specifically the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn’t mean you can only on a certain type of weapon or this or that. If that were the case that the second amendment doesn’t apply to Facebook tv or even the telephone. Seeing as how the founding fathers “could never haven imagined such a thing in the 1700s” yet With guns it does, so let’s disarm all law abiding gun owners.
- hamel5Lv 71 month agoBest Answer
So, I should be able to buy a piece of field artillery , cause the next town over gave me a parking ticket and I need to fight government oppression? How about a small nuke?
FYI I know enough to capitalize The Constitution. and there's something in the 2nd about "...a well regulated militia" Please have a literate member of your family explain
- SocratesLv 71 month ago
Obama called the Bill of Rights "negative rights" just prior to becoming president. He would have done away with it if you could have. They want government issued rights (Human Rights). They think they came take care of the people better than individuals can. The Bill of Rights puts Natural (Individual) Rights in control of America. All government is required to do here is to protect the individuals ability to exercise those rights.
- BlueNinjaLoveLv 71 month ago
The hell are you saying.
Why do cons like you hate the constitution except the 2nd amendment? Why do you all seem to believe it's solely about guns? Why don't you get up in arms over weapons that aren't guns that are banned in some places, as if banning those particular arms are not big deal as long as the guns are okay? Why are throwing stars, for example, banned in some states like mine (cripe most people would just have them as decoration), but military style weapons are okay?
- BobLv 71 month ago
Why does Trump hate the constitution?
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous1 month ago
The Democrats don't hate Constitution. To begin with, there's a lot more to the Constitution than the Second Amendment and Republicans don't generally take a very principled stance on any other part of the Constitution. We can see that, for example, in Donald Trump's continued flouting subpoenas from Congress which is a co-equal branch of government, or his demands that they structure their impeachment inquiry in a manner which he She's Fit, in contrast to the Constitution which says that Congress has complete power over impeachment.
Even with the Second Amendment though, your interpretation is not at all consistent with the meaning of the Constitution or American jurisprudence. The founding fathers did not believe that the Second Amendment gave individuals and unlimited ability to own weapons. Gun regulation has always been a part of the United States from before the founding of the country, through the 18th, 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries. It's also true that the right-wing, as embodied in so-called gun rights groups such as the NRA, pushes a fundamentally incorrect understanding the Constitution. According to the right wing, one of the principal reasons, perhaps the principal reason, for the Second Amendment is to allow the people to overthrow the government. This is completely false. The founding fathers never intended the Second Amendment to allow the people to violently overthrow the government. The Constitution includes a provision mandating that the government put down rebellions against its rule. So the idea that it would also include a provision allowing people to Ravel is pretty silly. That would establish a political system where the people who ran things would be those most willing and able to use violence. That runs completely counter to the notion of a Republican government built on laws that the founders were trying to establish. Instead, the second amendment was supposed to allow the people to defend the government, both from foreign threats and domestic Insurrection. The founding fathers were steeped in British political thought which held that standing armies were a threat to Liberty. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, armies were used as much to discipline a rulers own populations as they were to defend against foreign Invasion. The British had traditionally had a very small standing army in the American colonists inherited this distrust of the military. The purpose of the second amendment was to maintain the ability of the people to form militias. The existence of this malicious, it was believed by the founding fathers, would eliminate the need for a standing army by allowing the people to defend the country against threats and then disband into civilians again.
- 1 month ago
Democrats are reatrded lazy *** pieces of **** that live with they're parents and collect welfare. In my opinion, they should all be executed by firing squad. If we didn't have gun =s how would we protect oursleves from colored people? We couldn't, and they'd still have gun's because they still somehow get drugs like marijuana and they're illegal.
- Anonymous1 month ago
Then why does your Fuhrer Orange always whine about the First Amendment rights to free speech for the media?
- JeffreyLv 71 month ago
It's because the Constitution limits what the central government can do.
- YavanLv 71 month ago
No, it doesn't.
The word 'WELL REGULATED militia' is there for a reason.
The founding father did not intend for any group of Yahoos to form their own independent army.
- Anonymous1 month ago
Trump wipes his a$$ with it.