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
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-179 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?
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
To: anonsquared
3
posted on
03/12/2007 10:13:18 PM PDT
by
KDD
(Ron Paul for President)
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)
To: anonsquared
OK, I want an electric Gatling gun and a belt fed grenade launcher.
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.")
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)
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)
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)
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.)
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)
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!)
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
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.)
To: devolve; PhilDragoo; Grampa Dave
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?)
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?)
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.
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
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
To: anonsquared
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-179 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson