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 ...
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?
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.
Would, say, keeping concealed carry from convicted felons be a "reasonable restriction"?
OK, I want an electric Gatling gun and a belt fed grenade launcher.
>THAT IS A PERSONAL RIGHT.
I've yet to see any convincing evidence that the 2nd is a personal right conferred to individuals.
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.
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.
No thanks, Rudy.
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...
Rudy is no conservative. He is history. Bye bye.
Dang where did all these liberals come from? Did DU just runneth over?
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.
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.
Ping
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.
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.
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.
In light of all the already existing "reasonable restrictions", what new restrictions could possibly be conjured up?
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.