Why are liberal democrats so afraid of the Second Amendment?

damn i hate liberals so much they don't know what the hell they are talking about a militia is just a group of people back then they fought to make this land free from the British and our forefather new that technology would get better and we would come up with a repeating gun it was just a mater of time as for the lib lady that would use guns against hunters because we shoot poor little animals i love to eat meat and if you haven't noticed meat doesn't come from a tree and i love deer meat because it doesn't have a lot of fat and they don't have it at walmart so i blow their heads off with my Barrett 50.cal and as for the person that said we only have "peashooters" i can have damn near any kind of gun i want i can buy a 50.caliber machine gun if i want and the a-rabs over in Iraq have been a thorn in our side with "peashooters" and for the libs who ***** that Bush has taken away our rights we haven't lost any of them and if you don't feel safe that people have a AK-47 then buy something bigger and then you will have more firepower

The VAST majority of Democrats - even liberal ones (such as myself) - are not out to take anyones guns away. The 2nd Amendment has been interpreted over & over & over again as giving Americans these rights.

Just because a fringe, slim minority of people want to take guns out of your hands, doesn't mean it's going to happen - or even CAN happen.....it would require the repeal of the 2nd Amendment - and that's NEVER gonna happen.

There's nothing wrong with people holding a position - even a position that YOU might find offensive. No doubt YOU hold a position that someone else might find offensive. This is America - where people are free to have opinions & express them. But - we're also a nation of laws, guided by our Constitution - and as you correctly point out, the Constitution grants the citizenry the right to guns.

You are becoming hysterical over an issue that there will ALWAYS be disagreement on.....but don't worry - the pro-gun crowd has nothing to fear.....let the pro-gun control people express their opinions, if you believe in the freedoms of being an American, then you will support their right to expression. Your gun rights are Constitutionally guaranteed - stop the worrying & the hysterics.

Actually, most legal scholars consider the first ammendment the greatest gift of our forefathers. Sadly, very few people are equally active in supporting that one these days. The recent Military Commissions Act which enables a sitting president to ignore the writ of habeus corpus puts that and many other rights in serious jeapardy.

I am for stricter gun control. I am not for a ban on guns however. I guess that may make me one of those trying to deny your freedom. That is not my intent. However, any reasoning person should be able to see that there are some persons that do not need to have access to firearms.

If you will study writings of the founding fathers you will see what they were thinking when they wrote the words you closed your question with. They intended a strong citizen militia which could counteract a strong government force. The bill of rights are intended as our rights agains government usurption. The simple fact, as any military professional will tell you, is that handguns do not in any way provide for a strong defense against a well armed force.

I am a liberal who is more than willing to fight for each of the rights outlined in the bill of rights. To the death if need be. As you speak so eloquently for the bill of rights, are you willing to pledge the same. Are you willing to fight for our right to speak freely even if you do not like what is said? Are you willing to fight to keep laws from being passed when they are solely based on religios belief, even if they give gay couples legal rights? IS only one right important to you? Or are they all important?

Not being a liberal Democrat I can only guess at the answer to the question. I am guessing that it's because those who make such a big deal out of having the right to own guns are exactly those people who shouldn't have guns...kind of like a drunk driver with a car...it's just a matter of time before he runs over himself or someone else or forgets where he parked it and gets it stolen by some kid or a bad actor and leaves cleaning up the resulting mess to the rest of us.

For the rest of us who have no use for guns because of the above reasons, and because there is no way in hell that we're all ever going to get together and overthrow our corrupt government with our little peashooters or by any other violent means, the 2nd Amendment has outlived its usefulness. Quit acting like a warlord wannabe and civilize thyself!

The whole bill if rights first 10 amendments is the only part of the constitution worth keeping the rest needs to be toss out & redone!

Well it has been a while since I looked at the statistics, but what I remember was that countries that never legalized guns were safer and had less crime. Now we've already gone and legalized them, so we'd be screwed if we took them away now, but we would have been better of if they were never legal in the first place.

I think you are being a little extreme here.

And.....I'm going to have to agree with the person above me "WELL REGULATED MILITIA" is fine. Doesn't sound like its that well regulated to me though when we've got soldiers over there raping a 13 year old, then killing her and her whole family. Hmmm....

And everyone alive knows that you can't trust a bunch of testosterone driven 19 year old men worth a shi*. Would you trust a bunch of 19-20 year old men around your daughter? Doubt it. Now give them guns.....good idea.

Your UN idea is preposterous, as is your hateful and uninformed position of the values of the Democratic party.

As far as the 2nd amendment . . .

My issue with it is not with the amendment - which in my opinion is absolutely correct - but the amendment's abuse. NRA and other gun lobbies conveniently leave out the first half of the sentence, proclaiming solely that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." The 2nd amendment guarantees a police force the right to arms, not everyday citizens! That being said, I support the right for citizens to bear arms for their personal protection, but I do think there need to be stricter gun laws!

I also support the right to arm bears . . . against all the crazies who use their guns to go hunting and killing under the guise of "sport."

Why have the Repubs ignored the first amendment? Shall we refresh your memory?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

ummmm, how come our first admendment rights have been checked off and ignored by Bushie?

I'm a liberal independent and I'm not afraid of the Second, but your answer is right in your question. "A well-regulated militia . . ." Note that "well-regulated." The Founders didn't intend for everybody with a trigger finger to own a gun; they intended for the government to have some kind of control over who could and couldn't possess guns.

It astounds me that people who are so terrified of government regulation of guns have no trouble with the Bush Administration's trashing of the rest of the Bill of Rights.

You seem to ignore that very important first part of the second amendment..."A well regulated militia..." How does individual gun ownership have anything to do with a well-regulated militia? It doesn't.

And how many individual gun owners use their guns to defend freedom from those who would oppress us? The only use of firearms I've seen that has defended us against those who would oppress us has been by the US military. Individual gun owners seem to think that hunting, target shooting, killing their family members or neighbors (those three things are the ONLY things that over 99% of guns owned by individuals in the country are used for) mean they're defending freedom or participating in a well-regulated militia. What's the percentage of individual-owned guns that was used for self-defense in the owner's home in the past 10 years? Less than 0.1%. What's the percentage of individual-owned guns that was used to shoot a family member or neighbor (not in self-defense of any kind) in the past 10 years? 13%.

You have no well-regulated militia. You are not using your guns to defend freedom. You have no legs to stand on in your argument.