Why do many liberals seem to find it okay to disregard and limit the second amendment?

Question

The second amendment has been vilified by those in power who fear it most. These are the people that are daily trying to subvert the first and second amendments (the left's PC movement silencing Republicans).

The Second Amendment is unique because it guarantees that the others will not be taken away.

Answer 1

Nobody fears the 2nd amendment; that is the most absurd thing I keep hearing. Why is it that we think we need the 2nd amendment to protect other rights. If were being completely honest, the bill of rights are just words on a piece of paper these days; nobody is really following them that seriously in our governing body. New laws are constantly challenging the authority of the bill of rights. (Without completely undermining them) Your little gun isn't going to stop a highly sophisticated, highly militaristic nation from having their way with you... so let's be realistic. At best, the public will simply walk away from the political structure, if it got that bad; but you're not winning some war against the government. In truth, if they wanted to, they could covertly strip you of every other right, and leave you with the second amendment; and you likely wouldn't know the difference. The 2nd amendment, at best these days... makes a foreign invader plan a little harder; but force isn't necessary to keep our government in check.

Answer 2

Liberals are neither disregarding nor limiting the second amendment. At least they are not limiting beyond its current limitations. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion but that does not mean we must permit religions to practice human sacrifice. Likewise, there are limitations on the second amendment and all other amendments. You cannot build a nuclear bomb in your basement and justify it as part of your right to bear arms.

Answer 3

The second amendment has already been limited. There are certain arms you cannot legally buy (anthrax, nuclear weapons), and there are certain people (for example prison inmates) who do not have the right to bear arms.



None of these limitations are stipulated within the 2nd amendment. They've been applied afterwards. So what I want to know is, how do you decide which limitations are constitutional or not? Until I hear a clear answer on this (i.e. with reference to the CONSTITUTION) I'm not convinced that the limitations Obama wants to bring in are any less constitutional than the limitations that gun advocates already accept.

Answer 4

"The Second Amendment is unique because it guarantees that the others will not be taken away."



Oh, really? Because the first amendment was non existent during the Wilson and even John Adams administration, and there were no serious threats of armed insurrection. And the fourth amendment has been dead since the passage of the Patriot Act (in 2002 I think). Again, no threat of insurrection like you would guess. So obviously that statement is false.



And it is the neocons, all republicans and most democrats, who all actively work against the fourth amendment - which is arguably the most important one, and far less vague and obscure than the second.

Answer 5

Liberals don't disregard the second amendment but interpret it in a different manner than many conservatives do.



The typical conservative line, as pushed by the NRA, is that the second amendment is absolute and that any regulations of guns represent a breach of it. This belief is so extreme that in Florida the Republican legislature passed a law forbidding doctors to ask patients about guns and gun use on the theory that merely talking to gun owners and giving them factually true information about the dangers of guns is a violation of their second amendment rights. This idea is very recent, emerging only in the last couple of decades and entering law only in the last few years, primarily with the Supreme Court decision in Heller which, for the first time, established that there is an individual right to own guns.



Liberals follow a more traditionalist interpretation of the second amendment, both in terms of historic interpretation of the amendment itself and in terms of rights more generally. For all of its history, the second amendment has been interpreted to allow for reasonable regulation of gun ownership and use in order to promote gun safety and other compelling government interests. Liberals still hold to this interpretation, and seek reasonable restrictions on guns in order to try and reduce crime. This interpretation is also in keeping with how other constitutional rights are treated. Other rights, such as freedom of speech, may be expansive in their scope but are not absolute. Government infringes on freedom of speech all the time in order to promote compelling interests. For example, I can't slander someone, or use their copyrighted works without their permission. Those are all limitations on speech, but are ones that promote important societal interests. Similarly, it is acceptable to regulate the ownership and usage of guns in order to promote the compelling interest of preserving American life.

Answer 6

Go read 60 truths about liberals. I will help you understand why libs are as they are and why the promote what they promote.

Answer 7

The Constitution should be a living document and some parts of it are no longer needed. The Second Amendment should be reviewed carefully for its continued necessity. We are different nation that has progressed beyond the Wild West. Our Constitution should reflect that change.

Answer 8

You mean like when Nixon wanted to ban handguns and when Ford banned Saturday Night Specials? A couple of real liberals there hey?

Answer 9

The 2nd Amendment is what makes us Americans.

Answer 10

Most of today's liberals are closet totalitarians, and they expect to be fully out of the closet by 2020 at the latest.

Answer 11

You must not read much on this subject vs. just post stuff online....

Answer 12

The failure of public education to teach is the culprit. LOL