Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Second Amendment subject to REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS - Giuliani
Fox News ^ | March 12, 2007 | Brit Hume video

Posted on 03/12/2007 10:10:00 PM PDT by anonsquared

Everyone needs to see the video clip of Giuliani that Brit Hume aired today.

Go to http://www.foxnews.com/specialreport/ and scroll down to Race for 08 and click on the picture of Rudy to pull up the video player. Then you'll have to click on the video called Rallying for Rudy. It starts with Vitter endorsing him but keep watching for Rudy.

Asked if he would veto any bill impinging the 2nd amendment - he refused to say without first seeing the legislation.

Then the money quote...

"THERE'S A RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. THAT IS A PERSONAL RIGHT. THERE CAN BE REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS."

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; giuliani; gungrabber; hangontoyourammo; molonlabe; rino; rudy; rudy2008
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-179 next last
So there you have it folks, you have the right to keep and bear arms SUBJECT TO REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS!

THE FOUNDING FATHERS ARE ROLLING OVER IN THERE GRAVES KNOWING WE HAVE ALREADY ALLOWED THIS OUT OF CONTROL GOVERNMENT TO OUTGUN ITS CITIZENS!

What part of 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED' don't they understand?

We'd be better off with a donkey president since it seems the elephant party is only good at playing defense.

ANARCHY ANYONE?

1 posted on 03/12/2007 10:10:04 PM PDT by anonsquared
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: anonsquared

Oops. Misstep by Rudy. Although maybe he means "reasonable restrictions" like you can't have a cannon on your rooftop. Or mount a machinegun on your car. Maybe those kinds of "reasonable restrictions." After all, there are "reasonable restrictions" on the First Amendment: pornography, can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, can't threaten to kill the President, etc.


2 posted on 03/12/2007 10:13:03 PM PDT by hsalaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anonsquared
The DC Gun Ban
3 posted on 03/12/2007 10:13:18 PM PDT by KDD (Ron Paul for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anonsquared

Would, say, keeping concealed carry from convicted felons be a "reasonable restriction"?


4 posted on 03/12/2007 10:14:20 PM PDT by IslandJeff (if you marginalize religion, only the marginalized will have religion. -Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anonsquared

OK, I want an electric Gatling gun and a belt fed grenade launcher.


5 posted on 03/12/2007 10:14:26 PM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anonsquared

>THAT IS A PERSONAL RIGHT.

I've yet to see any convincing evidence that the 2nd is a personal right conferred to individuals.


6 posted on 03/12/2007 10:15:06 PM PDT by AZRepublican ("The degree in which a measure is necessary can never be a test of the legal right to adopt it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hsalaw

When the 2nd amendment was written, I doubt the founding fathers had WMD (which are arms), tanks, machine guns, hand grenades, etc. in mind.

If by arms, the writers meant single shot musket and maybe rifles, I think everyone is on board with that. I don't think you should be able to keep a nuke in your house and even a hand grenade or RPG is out of bounds.


7 posted on 03/12/2007 10:16:21 PM PDT by staytrue (If you don't support good conservative Joe Nobody for president, you are a RINO and not a "true cons)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: anonsquared
I agree that the language of the Constitution is quite absolute and definitive with respect to both the right to Keep and Bear Arms, and also with respect to the right to speak. However, such absolutist interpretations of the Constitution are not politically viable at this point in time. We'll be lucky to get recognition that the Second Ammendment is a personal right.

I'd take whatever recognition of one's rights the commentariat and politicos are willing to admit, and then use that as the basis for getting more later. The left has been quite effective at using such incrementalism for many decades now, and we need to learn to do the same.

8 posted on 03/12/2007 10:16:48 PM PDT by sourcery (Government Warning: The Attorney General has determined that Federal Regulation is a health hazard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anonsquared
I guess that JulieAnnie and his liberal 'gun grabbing' buddies get to DEFINE,,,,'reasonable'.

No thanks, Rudy.

9 posted on 03/12/2007 10:16:57 PM PDT by stockstrader ("Where government advances--and it advances relentlessly--freedom is imperiled"-Janice Rogers Brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hsalaw
After all, there are "reasonable restrictions" on the First Amendment: pornography, can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, can't threaten to kill the President, etc.

Can't send out more than 500 pieces of mail mentioning a candidate's name in the 60 days prior to an election without government approval...

10 posted on 03/12/2007 10:16:59 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: anonsquared

Rudy is no conservative. He is history. Bye bye.


11 posted on 03/12/2007 10:18:23 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anonsquared

Dang where did all these liberals come from? Did DU just runneth over?


12 posted on 03/12/2007 10:18:30 PM PDT by Khepera (Do not remove by penalty of law!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: supercat
Can't send out more than 500 pieces of mail mentioning a candidate's name in the 60 days prior to an election without government approval...

I don't care what the Supreme Court said, that one's an unconstitutional infringement on the right of free speech, which includes political speech.

13 posted on 03/12/2007 10:18:56 PM PDT by hsalaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: staytrue
When the 2nd amendment was written, I doubt the founding fathers had WMD (which are arms), tanks, machine guns, hand grenades, etc. in mind.

Private merchant ships often had cannons (those that didn't would be easy prey for pirates). I think in a duel between a merchant ship armed with 18th-century cannons and someone with an AK-47, the merchant ship would win.

14 posted on 03/12/2007 10:19:04 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: devolve; PhilDragoo; Grampa Dave

Ping


15 posted on 03/12/2007 10:20:07 PM PDT by potlatch (Does a clean house indicate that there is a broken computer in it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anonsquared
I'm pretty cool with average citizens owning anything that isn't a crew serviced weapon, and some of the bigger machine guns would also have to be tightly regulated, but other than that, go (safely) nuts.

From a public safety standpoint, I just can't justify private ownership of anything too big. Traffic is crazy enough around here without some idiot mounting a recoilless rifle on his truck.

16 posted on 03/12/2007 10:21:38 PM PDT by Zeroisanumber (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anonsquared

I take it that most of you who have replied were taught in GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS. You need to sit down and read why the Second Amendment was placed 2nd.

The men who founded this country wanted to make sure that if the government they founded got as oppressive as the one they overthrew, there would be a mechanism in place to overthrow it. From the brainwashed replies posted here, I'd say we've reached that point.


17 posted on 03/12/2007 10:23:30 PM PDT by anonsquared
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: supercat
I think in a duel between a merchant ship armed with 18th-century cannons and someone with an AK-47, the merchant ship would win.

Peace through superior firepower. Had to say that. I have a very nice friend who's a liberal at heart, and every time she tells me we should strive for peace, I tell her we are, through superior firepower.

18 posted on 03/12/2007 10:23:34 PM PDT by hsalaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: anonsquared

In light of all the already existing "reasonable restrictions", what new restrictions could possibly be conjured up?


19 posted on 03/12/2007 10:24:50 PM PDT by umgud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anonsquared

20 posted on 03/12/2007 10:25:44 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anonsquared

It just gets better and better with that fellow doesn't it?


21 posted on 03/12/2007 10:25:48 PM PDT by SmoothTalker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anonsquared
So there you have it folks, you have the right to keep and bear arms SUBJECT TO REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS!

Uh-huh. All rights are subject to reasonable restrictions, particularly where they infringe upon or threaten the rights or others. Or would you defend your next-door neighbor's right to have a homemade thermonuclear warhead?

And as a personal tactical note, the EXCESSIVE use of ALL-CAPS makes you come off as the online equivalent of the street lunatic screaming that THE END IS NIGH!!!1!

22 posted on 03/12/2007 10:26:39 PM PDT by ReignOfError (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

Will this suffice? :

http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/a/217543.htm

Click on "ruling".

I know it's several pages long, and well foot-noted (which may be tough for you to get through), but this court has it right.


23 posted on 03/12/2007 10:26:55 PM PDT by Adams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: devolve; AZRepublican

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

And, we the people may BE the Militia when they start coming to take our rights away and hopefully not cower like the French.

We don't have to have machine guns in our homes

Just my personal opinion, I am not an expert on the Constitution.


24 posted on 03/12/2007 10:27:07 PM PDT by potlatch (Does a clean house indicate that there is a broken computer in it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican
I've yet to see any convincing evidence that the 2nd is a personal right conferred to individuals.

Then you haven't been looking.

The Second cannot be anything other than a personal right. It has no meaning or purpose otherwise. All the other rights listed in the Bill of Rights are individual rights--why would the Second be any different?

Madison was at first opposed to having any Bill of Rights at all, reasoning (correctly, as it turns out,) that the presence of explicitly enumerated rights would cause people to think that the only individual rights were the ones enumerated in the Constititution.

Madison's understanding of the Constitution (and he was the principal author, after all) was that the governement had no power or authority other than what was explicitly granted it by the plain language of the Constiution. From that perspective, individuals need no Second Ammendment to have a personal right to bear weapons, since individuals have the Liberty right to do whatever they please, provided they avoid violating the rights of others.

In the view of Madison and Jefferson, no government ever has the power to infringe on the Natural (Liberty) rights of individuals, regardless of whether or not those rights are explicitly recognized by a Consitution. The Natural, Liberty right to bear a weapon derives from the right to property and from the right to self-defense--both of which ultimately derive from the right to life.

25 posted on 03/12/2007 10:29:42 PM PDT by sourcery (Government Warning: The Attorney General has determined that Federal Regulation is a health hazard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: staytrue
I think everyone is on board with that.

NO! but thanks for the shining example of the slippery slope that got the 2nd Amendment to where it is today.

26 posted on 03/12/2007 10:31:45 PM PDT by WTSand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: stockstrader
I guess that JulieAnnie and his liberal 'gun grabbing' buddies get to DEFINE,,,,'reasonable'.

No. Actually, that's pretty much up to Congress. You know - - the House and the Senate. You crazy liberals who think of the President as some kind of all-powerful king really crack me up.

27 posted on 03/12/2007 10:32:00 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: staytrue

Sorry, but I want enough firepower to make a platoon of Reno's irregulars think twice about knocking my door in.


28 posted on 03/12/2007 10:32:38 PM PDT by HockeyPop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever
Rudy is no conservative. He is history. Bye bye.

Hmmm, Ronald Reagan also supported restrictions on gun ownership. Was he also "no conservative"?

“Reagan last week declared his support for a bill requiring a seven-day waiting period for handgun purchases. He did so at a George Washington University ceremony marking the 10th anniversary of the shooting that almost killed him and permanently disabled his press secretary, James S. Brady.

“It is called the Brady Bill, and Reagan said Congress should enact it without delay. ‘It's just plain common sense that there be a waiting period to allow local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on those who wish to buy a handgun,’ the former president said.’”

Another
“It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, ‘prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street.’ The law was aimed at stopping the Black Panthers, but affected all gun owners.

“Twenty-four years later, Reagan was still pushing gun control. ‘I support the Brady Bill,’ he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, ‘and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay.’"

And of course Reagan signed the ban on full-auto weapons manufactured or imported since 1986. If Ronald Reagan was not a conservative, under your standards, just who is a conservative?
29 posted on 03/12/2007 10:33:26 PM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever
Rudy is no conservative. He is history. Bye bye.

Hmmm, Ronald Reagan also supported restrictions on gun ownership. Was he also "no conservative"?

“Reagan last week declared his support for a bill requiring a seven-day waiting period for handgun purchases. He did so at a George Washington University ceremony marking the 10th anniversary of the shooting that almost killed him and permanently disabled his press secretary, James S. Brady.

“It is called the Brady Bill, and Reagan said Congress should enact it without delay. ‘It's just plain common sense that there be a waiting period to allow local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on those who wish to buy a handgun,’ the former president said.’”

Another
“It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, ‘prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street.’ The law was aimed at stopping the Black Panthers, but affected all gun owners.

“Twenty-four years later, Reagan was still pushing gun control. ‘I support the Brady Bill,’ he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, ‘and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay.’"

And of course Reagan signed the ban on full-auto weapons manufactured or imported since 1986. If Ronald Reagan was not a conservative, under your standards, just who is a conservative?
30 posted on 03/12/2007 10:33:32 PM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: potlatch

- Reloading -

31 posted on 03/12/2007 10:34:16 PM PDT by devolve ( ........upload images free & fast at tinypic.com or Photobucket or Imagecave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
I repeat....JulieAnnie and his 'gun grabbing' liberal buddies?

Capice? or do I have to explain futher?...lol

32 posted on 03/12/2007 10:34:42 PM PDT by stockstrader ("Where government advances--and it advances relentlessly--freedom is imperiled"-Janice Rogers Brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: devolve

Reloading - her mouth most probably, lol.


33 posted on 03/12/2007 10:36:53 PM PDT by potlatch (Does a clean house indicate that there is a broken computer in it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: IslandJeff

"Would, say, keeping concealed carry from convicted felons be a "reasonable restriction"?



Of course it is. Rudy has gone far beyond this point in the past, however, and still seems ready to defend his actions. As an example of "reasonable", Florida isn't bad.
Any more would definetly be "unreasonable".
Rudy is totally scornful of the Constitution, on this issue.


34 posted on 03/12/2007 10:39:33 PM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER (THE SECOND AMENDMENT, A MATTER OF FACT, NOT A MATTER OF OPINION)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: IslandJeff
re: keeping concealed carry from convicted felons be a "reasonable restriction"?

I think it depends on the felony, and what the felon wants to do with the gun. Whey should someone who was convicted of a non-violent crime 30 years ago be any greater danger if they keep a weapon in their home for protection?

When possible, the crime should how the weapon is used, not who uses it.
35 posted on 03/12/2007 10:39:42 PM PDT by jwparkerjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: potlatch


I'll be making "The Saul Alinsky Dancers" later



36 posted on 03/12/2007 10:40:42 PM PDT by devolve ( ........upload images free & fast at tinypic.com or Photobucket or Imagecave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: jwparkerjr

Or even Scooter Libby.


37 posted on 03/12/2007 10:40:54 PM PDT by stockstrader ("Where government advances--and it advances relentlessly--freedom is imperiled"-Janice Rogers Brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: sourcery

Madison:

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

Jefferson:

"Can it be believed that the States meant to surrender the authority of preserving order, of enforcing moral duties, and restraining vice, within their own territory?"





http://federalistblog.us/2007/03/dc_circuits_2nd_amendment_holding_too_weak_to_survive.html


38 posted on 03/12/2007 10:41:18 PM PDT by AZRepublican ("The degree in which a measure is necessary can never be a test of the legal right to adopt it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Bubba182

Who could afford to feed them?


39 posted on 03/12/2007 10:43:13 PM PDT by Greystoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

"I've yet to see any convincing evidence that the 2nd is a personal right conferred to individuals."



You haven't looked very hard. Save yourself the effort, I KNOW it is, and I'm willing to die defending it.


40 posted on 03/12/2007 10:44:21 PM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER (THE SECOND AMENDMENT, A MATTER OF FACT, NOT A MATTER OF OPINION)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican
I've yet to see any convincing evidence that the 2nd is a personal right conferred to individuals.

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.

If the 2nd didn't confer rights to individuals but to the state it would be read thusly.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the state to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The 1st amendment reads:
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.

Is there any doubt that freedom of speech applies to the individual? Or does it apply soley to the state?

The 4th amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Are individuals implied here? Or the state?

When the amendment says state it means state. When it says people it means people.

The only time "the people" implies the state, is in a communist or socialist society. That wasn't the politics of the US in the late 1700's.

The All-American Gun In colonial times, as Cramer argues, people didn’t own guns just for hunting. Numerous laws mandated that people have guns for personal defense and defense of the community, at home, while traveling and even in church.

Heads of households, whether men or women, were required to have a gun at home and fines of up to a month’s wages were imposed on those who failed to meet this requirement.

In some states such as Maryland, fines were paid directly to inspectors so that authorities had a strong incentive to check. The only people exempt from these rules were Quakers...

41 posted on 03/12/2007 10:46:36 PM PDT by mountn man (The pleasure you get from life, is equal to the attitude you put into it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: anonsquared

The moron's reasonable restrictions included not allowing NYC folks to renew the handgun permits. Giuliani can take a flying leap into the grand canyon.


42 posted on 03/12/2007 10:48:43 PM PDT by spunkets ("Freedom is about authority", Rudy Giuliani, gun grabber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

"I've yet to see any convincing evidence that the 2nd is a personal right conferred to individuals."

That is precisely what the ruling was recently by the DC court three judge panel.

Not to mention over 200 years of precedent.

The issue is: what are reasonable restrictions?


43 posted on 03/12/2007 10:50:37 PM PDT by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Greystoke

Good point!


44 posted on 03/12/2007 10:55:19 PM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: anonsquared
re: I'd say we've reached that point

Take a moment and read through the complaints the founders had with England that lead to the Declaration of Independence! Many of them are the very same things we face today.

The average family today spends about 50 percent of what it earns to pay taxes. Granted, the highest income tax rate isn't that high, but when you include taxes at every level from the special taxing districts to cities to the feds the total going for taxes now is close to half, more in some areas.

The individual citizen has little control over what's done in Washington. You elect a person based on what they promise to do and once they are in office you no assurance they will keep their promise.

The method by which the Congress, especially the Senate, makes laws is so convoluted and confusing that it bears hardly any resemblance to how laws were passed two hundred years ago. Senate rules are piled on top of Senate rules and you end up with situations that the founders never intended, like 60 votes to confirm a Supreme Court justice. Or earmarks that cost amount to nothing more than Congress spending billions and billions of OUR money to buy OUR votes for the incumbent.

How about the fact that the wording of the 1st Amendment "CONGRESS shall make no law" being bastardized to the point the courts tell us that means even private organizations like the Boy Scouts? Or that cities must remove crosses from their official seals?

I would say we have reached the point where the federal government is as oppressive as the one we overthrew in 1776.
45 posted on 03/12/2007 10:56:10 PM PDT by jwparkerjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

And you'll never admit that the right to keep and bear arms is an "individual right", will you? read the Constitution, leftie.


46 posted on 03/12/2007 10:56:17 PM PDT by ozzymandus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: staytrue
When the 2nd amendment was written, I doubt the founding fathers had WMD (which are arms), tanks, machine guns, hand grenades, etc. in mind.

If by arms, the writers meant single shot musket and maybe rifles, I think everyone is on board with that. I don't think you should be able to keep a nuke in your house and even a hand grenade or RPG is out of bounds.

When the 2nd amendment was written, the United States had recently finished the Revolutionary War. The people had revolted against a tyranical government. The idea was that the people would have arms to ward off an invading country or overthrow a tyranical one.

You don't do that limiting the types of arms you have.

47 posted on 03/12/2007 10:58:31 PM PDT by mountn man (The pleasure you get from life, is equal to the attitude you put into it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: anonsquared

Where do Hillary, Obama, and Edwards stand on the RTKBA?


48 posted on 03/12/2007 11:01:25 PM PDT by Cincinna (HILLARY & HER HINO "We are going to take things away from you for the Common Good")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: staytrue
staytrue said: "When the 2nd amendment was written, I doubt the founding fathers had WMD (which are arms), tanks, machine guns, hand grenades, etc. in mind. "

Nonsense.

Our Founders were rebels operating completely outside the laws which governed the colonies at the time.

They took cannons by force of arms from their own government's Fort Ticonderoga, hauled them through a snowy countryside, and arranged them on the heights surrounding Boston. They threatened their own government's navy with destruction if the government didn't evacuate the troops occupying Boston since shortly after the Boston Tea Party.

This was several months PRIOR to the creation of the Declaration of Independence. The clear intention of the Second Amendment is to prohibit the monopoly on power which the government had at the outbreak of the American Revolution.

49 posted on 03/12/2007 11:03:54 PM PDT by William Tell (RKBA for California (rkba.members.sonic.net) - Volunteer by contacting Dave at rkba@sonic.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: anonsquared
"Reasonable" "common sense" laws are all the Brady campaign has been calling for from day one.

Of course, what they consider "reasonable" and "common sense" includes the banning of, outrageous taxation of, or storage requirements which would render firearms useless, to just name a few.

When people start whipping out vague words like "reasonable" restrictions on an absolute and unalienable right, they are to be scrutinized at a minimum, and seldom trusted.

50 posted on 03/12/2007 11:04:27 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-179 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson