Why could anyone oppose any portion of the Bill OF Rights?

[shatoga]

why could anyone stand for nine amendments;
yet oppose the 2nd amendment?

Is there any reality check in operation?
trash one, trash them all!

Either they all stand inviolate or they all fall one by one.

What's wrong with each of us deciding for ourselves?


Don't Democrats oppose using governmnt to force their personal beliefs on all others?


Are those who support using government to force their beliefs on all others really Democrats?

visit Web of Deceit
www.counterpunch.org/monbiot0530.html
www.rense.com/general25/web.htm
www.commondreams.org/views02/0529-05.htm
www.bandlands.com/Earth/ChEarth/5-29-02.html

[tarkus]

1. What's wrong is...

Some people decide to carry guns and kill people with them. Now shotguns and rifles don't bother me so much, but I can't think of any reason to own a pistol unless you want tokill someone, and so I do not think that pistols should be allowed.

[Syrinx]

2. Maybe people carry pistols for self-defense

I actually don't own any handguns myself, but many people carry them, yet they don't want to kill anyone. They just want to keep themselves from being killed.

[shatoga]

3. I once laid a pistol on a shelf

For nine years, I could prove it never spontaneously jumped up and harmed anyone.
I fought for the US Constitution during that time.
that pistol laid there and was inert and did nothing.

A human hand must pick up any weapon/
knife, club, or gun,
and human intent must be exercised before that inanimate object ever it never harmed anyone.

those who fear guns, should fear fellow humans instead.

they must live in fear of nail-guns, staple-guns- bows and arrows,
harsh words.

The only reason I can imagine for dividing Democrats from the pro-choice issue:
You choose to own a gun and obey the law/
I choose to cower in fear/

is that Republicans can unite and win,
only if Democrats divide and squabble over the non-issue of gun ownership.

Pro-choice Democrats win.
Infighting squabbling Democrats enable Republicans to win again & again & again!

[billbuckhead]

6. Every civilized nation in the world is backing away from guns

Stopping terrorism begins at home. Ever notice the USA is almost alone in it's use of the death penalty and now leads the world in percentage of people in prison. More and better weapons on the homefront do the same as more and better weapons on the battlefield. More people are more easily killed by each escalation of weapons. The gunners now want everyone carrying concealed weapons backed up by assault rifles. Some choice, the asshole gunner next door can have ak-47's, rpg's and long range 50cal sniper rifles and you have a choice..............The same bad choice you have when you buy a family car. Do you buy a safer handling and more economical V6 powered 2 ton minivan or do you feel forced to step up to the 3 ton V8 powered full frame fullsize SUV because everyone else is switching to these behemouths and you have nightmares of one t-boning your minivan? It's time to challenge all these arm's races.

[shatoga]

29. another brick from the wall

Reagan:
"Tear down this wall!"

US Constitution either stands inviolate as a cohesive whole;
or it gets torn down brick by brick;
amendment by amendment as rightwing police state adherents
destroy one sentence at a time.

we have the amendment process,
for those few of US who care about the law.
and we have the "death of a thousand cuts' those who hate the US Constitution support.

Oppose any provision of our Constitution?
Support, propose and pass an amendment!

Or?
Obey the law as it exists!

Or?
Move to another country where your ilk have dominion over honest people.

[LastDemInIdaho]

4. How about protection from bigger rapists / muggers?

Why would you deny them protection from reality?

[LastDemInIdaho]

5. My little sister has never shot anyone but she save herself from rape+

She lives in little Vermont where she can carry a gun freely and
stopped some drunken frat boy in Burlington who was much bigger than her when she was walking to her car.

Her job has moved to Missouri (KC) and is concerned about being able to protect herself. She has voted Dem all her life but now has bent my ear to the breaking point about he anger against those that don't trust her with a defensive equalizer.

It is a serious issue that need attention...not brushoffs from the Bench.

[billbuckhead]

7. Isn't it ironic that the most pro-gun administration is rolling back our..

rights. Ashkroft loves the NRA and it's guns while he destroys our rights. I've been saying for some time that the last right to go will be to unlimited gun rights. It seems guns aren't protecting our rights after all.

[LastDemInIdaho]

8. I guess I was not paying attention

I'm a wild and crazy guy outside of work and have not noticed any restrictions yet. What should I be looking for?

[DoNotRefill]

11. It strikes me....

that the vast majority of pro-gun people here support ALL of the Bill of Rights, not just certain amendments in it.

I'm not fond of Ashcroft (that's a deliberate gross understatement for the sarcasm-impared). He's done a lot to erode our civil liberties. But trading off which civil liberties we're willing to see destroyed strikes me as incredibly stupid.

Why can't we simply keep ALL of the Bill of Rights intact? Because picking and choosing which civil rights we're willing to let slide into obscurity is a SURE recipe for eventual disaster. ANY civil right is only as strong as ALL civil rights. And once you allow one civil right to be gutted, the rest are not far behind.

[Trajan]

9. Why does this sound like a non Democrat questioning Democrats ?

Perhaps because it is ? ...

Arent you one of the members of "TheHighRoad.org" who decided to come to DU specifically to preach the gospel of gunlove in a dedicated progressive forum ? ....

Just fer shits N'Grinz ... right ? ...

Ok ... well: ... lets instead answer your question ..

You object that EVERY 'democrat' seems to love and adore EVERY of the other NINE amendments in the Bill of Rights, but seem to give the 2nd short shrift ? ...

Hmmmmmmm ? .. perhaps its because you are strawmanning the position of Democrats, who OBVIOUSLY possess beliefs that run the gamut from complete confiscation to absolute right to possess without restriction .... I always question such absolute assertions that WHOLE groups think this or that way .... Human nature is one of diverse thought ... hardly EVER in agreeance ..... so claims that certain classes are in absolute agreement are usually absurd ....

You say that Democrats "oppose' the 2nd amendment .....

No: ... Most DONT oppose it: .. but they may INTERPRET it differently .... to say that the 2nd Amendment is 'opposed' is a misrepresentation ... It is the wide open interpretation that is opposed ... NOT the amendment itself ....

MANY of us feel that the language in the amendment, other than being ungrammatical and imprecise, can be interpreted to identify a SPECIFIC group: a 'well regulated militia', as possessing the right to bear arms, without providing a specific individual right to bear outside of that regular-group context ....

You disagree with this distinction ? ...

Well ? .. no wonder: ... You already have those damned disagreeable Democrats figured out ...... dontcha ? ...

[LastDemInIdaho]

10. Why does this rhyme with trajan from free republic?

Speaking of TheHighRoad...
"If they hate SUVs then they're really going to be mad I drive a 2001 True Blue Bullitt Mustang GT. I have to floss those little ricers out from under the bumper at least 7 days a week." Trajan88

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/799399/posts

[DoNotRefill]

12. By your strict interpretation.....

"MANY of us feel that the language in the amendment, other than being ungrammatical and imprecise, can be interpreted to identify a SPECIFIC group: a 'well regulated militia', as possessing the right to bear arms, without providing a specific individual right to bear outside of that regular-group context ...."

Wouldn't the First Amendment protections only extend to acts by the FEDERAL Government? After all, the First Amendment clearly starts out "Congress shall pass no law..." or words to that effect. If you're using a strict constructionist interpretation on the Second Amendment, don't you have to do the same for the First? Or do you use a strict constructionist interpretation only when it's a right you don't like?

BTW, the use of the term "people" pokes a hole in your theory...if they meant the right only was granted to state governments to have an armed militia, why would they use the word "people"? They clearly differentiated in other places between the people and the state governments...and NOWHERE else is the word "people" interpreted to mean the states.

[MrBenchley]

15. Sure it does....

We may wish otherwise, but the plain fact is if you work at WalMart, WalMart can keep you from wearing a "BuckFush" button on your orange vest.....and there's fuckall we can do about it.

"NOWHERE else is the word "people" interpreted to mean the states."
Ummmmm...."We the people"

The Foudning Fathers had no problem singling out individuals when they meant individuals....

"No Person shall be a Representative...."

"No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained...."


Perhaps the funniest things about the NRA's "the Bill of Rights is only individual rights" lie, is that the NRA is currently suing to overturn campaign finance reform, with Ken Starr, on the claim that their COLLECTIVE first amendment rights are being hampered...although if you listen to their idiot propaganda no such thing is possible.

Very funny...they've never sued anywhere any time to prove their idiot "individual" lie about the second amendment was true, but they DID sue to complain their collective first amendment rights are being trampled on (by a restriction on their blood money).

[DoNotRefill]

16. "Ummmmm...."We the people""

go back to your history and Constitutional Law books...

The Constitution derives from the People generally, not the States. The Constitution took powers and liberties that were not grantable by the States under the Articles of Confederation. That's why we don't live under an amended Articles of Confederation, but instead under a wholly new Constitution.

"We may wish otherwise, but the plain fact is if you work at WalMart, WalMart can keep you from wearing a "BuckFush" button on your orange vest.....and there's fuckall we can do about it."

That depends. They can prevent you from wearing it on the clock while at work, but they can NOT prevent you from wearing it off the clock and not on their property. And in case you didn't notice it, Wal-Mart isn't the government (yet).

"Perhaps the funniest things about the NRA's "the Bill of Rights is only individual rights" lie, is that the NRA is currently suing to overturn campaign finance reform, with Ken Starr, on the claim that their COLLECTIVE first amendment rights are being hampered...although if you listen to their idiot propaganda no such thing is possible."

Wrong again. They're suing because the ORGANIZATION'S voice is being silenced. It's a corporation, and legally has one voice only. BTW, who else is supporting the lawsuit? Oh, yeah...those fascist right wingers at the ACLU...

[MrBenchley]

14. Why do most of the RKBA crowd sound like this?

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

13. The real question is

why would lunatics like Wayne LaPierre and John AshKKKroft lie about what the Second Amdndment says?

[iverglas]

17. why would anyone think the US Bill of Rights is necessary?

I ask because OBVIOUSLY the people who wrote your constitution did NOT, at one time, think that it was necessary.

Those things are called "amendments", no?

Your founders & framers didn't seem to have too much trouble with the idea that if a thing wasn't as good as it could be, it oughta be amended.

Why would anyone bind themselves and their children's futures to a bunch of words that the guys who wrote them in the first place had managed to leave out the first time around and only added as an afterthought??

I'm not saying there is anything WRONG with any of them -- I'm just saying THEY ARE NOT WRIT IN STONE.

I'm saying, and saying it quite confidently, that your founders & framers really did not think that they had produced perfection, the peak of human achievement, when they wrote your constitution and its early amendments.

They wrote what they believed to be the best blueprint for the project they were embarking on -- the creation of a society of free, happy people. Do you imagine that THEY thought that the result of what they were doing would be a bunch of people, over 200 years later, bickering and nattering about what those commas they used meant??

Man, I sure do doubt it. I don't think that they imagined that anyone else would feel more constrained by their choices and words than they themselves had felt by others' before them. I think they'd regard you as just as entitled to make your own rules and choose your own priorities as they felt that they were. I would think that they'd be the first to acknowledge that new circumstances call for fresh ideas.

I think they'd be disappointed as all hell if they were to read some of the things that get said here, and think some people to be evil idiots, using their words to betray their actual intentions and hopes.

I just don't think that they were so anti-modern as to believe that they had achieved the end state of human existence, written the final set of rules for human behaviour, and that human history could now end and no one else must ever think for themselves or take their own destiny in hand. I really just don't. But that's just me.



I've got rights that you don't have, under my constitution. How can that be? If your constitution is a complete and perfect set of stuff and can't be tampered with, how could anyone have added to it? What would happen to mine if it were tampered with, and the stuff that I have that you don't were taken out of it?

You've got that second amendment thingy that I don't have any counterpart of. And still my constitutional rights have managed not to fall flat, and are doing just fine, thank you. If a constitutional bill of rights needs a "right to bear arms" in it, how can that be?

Sorry ... I shouldn't have tried to pretend that there are other proven ways of doing things in this world besides what your founders & framers may have dreamt up ... just got carried away; I'll try to restrain myself next time.

.

[RoeBear]

18. My thoughts:

"I ask because OBVIOUSLY the people who wrote your constitution did NOT, at one time, think that it was necessary.

Those things are called "amendments", no?

Your founders & framers didn't seem to have too much trouble with the idea that if a thing wasn't as good as it could be, it oughta be amended.

Why would anyone bind themselves and their children's futures to a bunch of words that the guys who wrote them in the first place had managed to leave out the first time around and only added as an afterthought??

I'm not saying there is anything WRONG with any of them -- I'm just saying THEY ARE NOT WRIT IN STONE."

No they aren't 'writ in stone' that's why there is a procedure to add amendments as they are seen fit. Something like: Congress proposes an amendment by a 2/3 majority; 3/4 of the states ratify by state constitutional conventions. Doesn't happen often.

"They wrote what they believed to be the best blueprint for the project they were embarking on -- the creation of a society of free, happy people."

No promise of 'happy people' here buddy.
Just:
'We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. '

"I've got rights that you don't have, under my constitution. How can that be?"

The right to be 'happy'?

"You've got that second amendment thingy that I don't have any counterpart of. And still my constitutional rights have managed not to fall flat, and are doing just fine, thank you. If a constitutional bill of rights needs a "right to bear arms" in it, how can that be?"

So do you believe your government could see fit to ban private ownership of firearms all together and you would have no recourse? (not would they, could they)

[iverglas]

19. why why why why why (edited)

Why can't "we" stick to the issue?

Why can't "we" address what someone else said without pretending s/he said something else?


The QUESTION that I was ANSWERING was THIS:

"Why could anyone oppose any portion of the Bill OF Rights?"


I happen to think it's a rather bizarre question. I can see asking "why could" (well, I'd say "why would" or "how could") "anyone oppose a right of free speech?" for instance.

The issue, to my mind, is surely why someone opposes "x", not "x as a part of something else".

If the question is "why would anyone oppose PART 'X' of the Bill of Rights", then that's the question that should be asked. The question as it was asked was just dumb, in my opinion.

I answered it, though. I explained why I would / how I could oppose some portion of the Bill of Rights, assuming of course that it applied to me.

Now.

No they aren't 'writ in stone' that's why there is a procedure to add amendments as they are seen fit.

How very helpful of you to remind me of this. Did you imagine I was unaware of it? Is it germane to this discussion? I surely can't see how.

Surely if someone did oppose some "portion of the Bill of Rights", then s/he would likely be proposing an amendment to it.

If the Bill of Rights says what you apparently think it says, then sure; somebody might propose an amendment some day. Forgive me if I'm not riding your bandwagon as to what it says.

But THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH the question that was asked, and that I was answering.

I note that the questioner did then refer to why someone would support the rest of the Bill of Rights, but oppose the second amendment. I kinda thought the answer to that would be obvious; actually, two possible answers.

The first would be because s/he believed that all the rest of the amendments were good things in the here and now but the second amendment isn't. Just exactly the answer that would apply to anyone who wanted to change anything.

The second wouldn't be an answer, it would be a rejection of the question because it is loaded: it assumes that people who advocate reasonable restrictions on firearms possession "oppose the second amendment", and I don't believe that this is an accurate representation of their position.

So I didn't see any point in addressing that more specific question. I addressed the one in the header of the post. And I don't see you addressing anything I actually said.


They wrote what they believed to be the best blueprint for the project they were embarking on -- the creation of a society of free, happy people.

No promise of 'happy people' here buddy.

And I didn't hear anyone say there was, chummy. So what's your point?


I've got rights that you don't have, under my constitution. How can that be?

The right to be 'happy'?

Bleedin' jeezus, you invent a meaningless tangent, and then you just follow it to the ends of the earth.


You've got that second amendment thingy that I don't have any counterpart of. And still my constitutional rights have managed not to fall flat, and are doing just fine, thank you. If a constitutional bill of rights needs a "right to bear arms" in it, how can that be?

So do you believe your government could see fit to ban private ownership of firearms all together and you would have no recourse? (not would they, could they)

I dunno; why would you ask? Did I say something that would make you think that I believed that?

I've said quite a lot of things that would make you think that I don't believe it, actually. Quite recently, too. Like: yesterday. Didja just miss all that? Didja just want me to think you missed it? Didja just want to make it look to others that I believe what you suggest, by asking the question that you had no earthly reason for asking?

How come you didn't answer MY question?

Who knows? Who cares?

If you ever feel like addressing anything I actually said, and not either your bizarre fantasy about what I said or your pointless misrepresentation of what I said, you feel free now.

.

[RoeBear]

20. You are just so full of yourself...

...I think I'll just put you on ignore rather than waste energy getting pissed off.

[jody]

21. See below

:toast:

[shatoga]

23. BELOW

they really fought hard against my posting:

>US Constitution
ARTICLE V<
>Amendments to this Constitution... shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution<


http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/constitution/

Oppose any part of our sacred US Constitution, and you fall into the category of:

http://bensguide.gpo.gov/9-12/citizenship/oath.html
>The Oath of Citizenship
I hereby declare, on oath,...that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; ... <

Oppose one single word of our US Constitution and ALL amendments thereto,
and my oath forces me to oppose you.



Anyone who disobeys that oath should renounce their citizenship and leave our nation.

BTW/
other veterans!
Our oath of enlistment was not revoked upon discharge:

>I, ___________________________________,
do solemly swear (or affirm)
that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States
against all enemies, foreign and domestic;... <

Any veteran who disobeys that oath should renounce their citizenship and leave our nation.

>US Constitution
ARTICLE V<
>Amendments to this Constitution... shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution<

What part of: >support and defend the Constitution < causes deluded "Democrats" to oppose the 2nd amendment?

Who always benefits when Democrats are tricked into fighting amongst ourselves?
Republicans!
Since when have pro-choice Democrats sought to use government power to impose their personal beliefs on all others?
Who always benefits when Democrats are tricked into fighting amongst ourselves?
Republicans!


"The best way to handle the opposition is to control it ourselves." VI Lennin/ (& RNC/Bivings Team Leader program/IMWIO)

[jody]

24. Understand and add the oath that naturalized citizens must take, below

Why should naturalized citizens be any different than a citizen by birth? Naturalized citizens take an oath including the following:
TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part II > Sec. 1448. - Oath of renunciation and allegiance
QUOTE
(a) Public ceremony
A person who has applied for naturalization shall, in order to be and before being admitted to citizenship, take in a public ceremony before the Attorney General or a court with jurisdiction under section 1421(b) of this title an oath

(1) to support the Constitution of the United States;
(2) to renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which the applicant was before a subject or citizen;
(3) to support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
(4) to bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and
(5)

(A) to bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law, or
(B) to perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law, or
(C) to perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law. Any such person shall be required to take an oath containing the substance of clauses (1) to (5) of the preceding sentence, except that a person who shows by clear and convincing evidence to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that he is opposed to the bearing of arms in the Armed Forces of the United States by reason of religious training and belief shall be required to take an oath containing the substance of clauses (1) to (4) and clauses (5)(B) and (5)(C) of this subsection, and a person who shows by clear and convincing evidence to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that he is opposed to any type of service in the Armed Forces of the United States by reason of religious training and belief shall be required to take an oath containing the substance of said clauses (1) to (4) and clause (5)(C). The term ''religious training and belief'' as used in this section shall mean an individual's belief in a relation to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation, but does not include essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views or a merely personal moral code. In the case of the naturalization of a child under the provisions of section 1433 of this title the Attorney General may waive the taking of the oath if in the opinion of the Attorney General the child is unable to understand its meaning. The Attorney General may waive the taking of the oath by a person if in the opinion of the Attorney General the person is unable to understand, or to communicate an understanding of, its meaning because of a physical or developmental disability or mental impairment. If the Attorney General waives the taking of the oath by a person under the preceding sentence, the person shall be considered to have met the requirements of section 1427(a)(3) of this title with respect to attachment to the principles of the Constitution and well disposition to the good order and happiness of the United States.

(b) Hereditary titles or orders of nobility
In case the person applying for naturalization has borne any hereditary title, or has been of any of the orders of nobility in any foreign state, the applicant shall in addition to complying with the requirements of subsection (a) of this section, make under oath in the same public ceremony in which the oath of allegiance is administered, an express renunciation of such title or order of nobility, and such renunciation shall be recorded as a part of such proceedings.
UNQUOTE

[DoNotRefill]

22. IIRC...

the Bill of Rights was added as part of the deal necessary to get the Constitution ratified. Without the Bill of Rights, it's very doubtful that the Constitution would have been ratified at all, and we'd either still be under the amended Articles or under a totally different document.

There are very few individual rights included in the actual body of the Constitution. It's important to remember that if it isn't written down, it's much more likely to be misinterpreted, or misremembered, or just plain old ignored. The guarantee of those basic rights was part and parcel of the foundation of our government.

You don't have a Second Amendment. Of course, your country never found the need to rise in armed insurrection against the Crown. We did, and saw fit to include the ability to retain the right of insurrection if necessary.

The Framers didn't think the Constitution was perfect, and meant to be a permanently fixed document. That's why they included the Amendment process. However, recognizing that change for change's sake isn't always a good thing, they made the Amendment process very very difficult, with plenty of supermajorities to be met.

Also, please keep in mind that the rights included in the BoR were NOT meant to be the be-all end-all as far as rights. They were meant to be a bedrock foundation of rights, where other rights could evolve over time or be included even though not specifically enumerated (that whole "reserved to the people or the states" language.)

If Americans want to get rid of the Second Amendment, there's a way to do it Constitutionally. It can be repealed. Instead, anti-gunners are trying the "death of a thousand cuts". The same holds true for other groups (like Bill Bennet and the drug war) and other rights. That's contrary to the entire idea behind the Constitution.

[Spentastic]

25. Logical foolery 101

"Why could anyone oppose any portion of the Bill OF Rights?"

Because they think that certain amendments don't represent their views or help society?

"Is there any reality check in operation?
trash one, trash them all!"

Er? Why? Says who? Oh! You do.

"Either they all stand inviolate or they all fall one by one."

Again that's a possible outcome. I remember domino theory from somewhere else.

"What's wrong with each of us deciding for ourselves?"

What? Like questioning the second amendment and its societal effects?

"Don't Democrats oppose using governmnt to force their personal beliefs on all others?"

Force? Yes probably. Using government to help the people however is entirely different.

I'm bored now.

[Paladin]

26. Pointless Argument

Personally, I could give a shit whether or not the Second Amendment remains as part of the Bill of Rights. Why? Because the Second has never, ever been effectively used to prevent the kind of vigorous controls on firearms favored by persons like me. Never will be so used, in my opinion.

[DocSavage]

27. Vigorus controls?

Could it be because the 2nd is suppose to limit vigorous controls? It is good that it will never be so used.

[Paladin]

28. Yeah, Right

As if the 2nd isn't a poorly written, lightly litigated anachronism in these days and times......

[shatoga]

31. Yeah! Why?

Why do you fear honest law abiding citizens having access to firearms?

Don't we all oppose criminals being armed?
why do you especially fear honest law abiding citizens having the right to protect themselves?
What is the real agenda that opposes law abiding citizens being armed?

I could post until doomsday about how fomenting dissension among Democrats enables Republicans.
give us the real reason why you want Democrats to fight amongst themselves,
while Republicans set aside petty differences and win again and again and again.


Where is the overwhelming "liberal" principle of re-electing Republicans?
How does that justify you calling ones'self a Democrat?
Inquiring minds want to know!

Again:
what right do you have to impose your views on all others?
that is a rightwing attitude.

why should I or anyone else, as a Democrat, support rightwing attitudes?

Freedom to think for myself,
is the reason I became a Democrat.

Why should I give up that Freedom
to knuckle under...to people who hate the 2nd amendment...
instead of just being pro-choice and supporting the entire US Constitution.

About that agenda:
What part of setting Democrats at each others' throats benefits Democrats?
What part of setting Democrats at each others' throats benefits Republicans?

whom is arguing Liberals' issues (freedom of choice-individual liberties)
and whom is arguing conservatives' issues (right to conform/ knuckle under to government and peers; disarm in service to the police state.)

Nobody should have any doubts!

[Paladin]

32. You And Your Side........

....are the ones that are carrying the right wing's water on this issue. You're the ones setting Democrats at one anothers' throats. And, God knows, you are the ones trying to impose your views on the rest of the Democratic Party. There is evidence of your side's disruptive activity---well organized, in my opinion--- on daily display here in J/PS......

[Jackie97]

33. The amendments are not a bible.

The amendments are not a part of the bible that one should feel the need to follow all of (As people of different religions do with their bible). It's a set of ideas for freedom created by a bunch of slave owners.

There's nothing wrong with being against one right, and being for the rest of them.

Of course, different interpretations could be applied to that amendment anyway.

[DoNotRefill]

34. They're not a bible...

but they ARE the highest law of the land, and they DO "trump" any other legislation that is not a part of the Constitution.

If you don't like it, fine, change it. There's an included mechanism to do it. But don't pretend it doesn't exist.