- Reloading -
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 ...
It just gets better and better with that fellow doesn't it?
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!
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.
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.
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.
NO! but thanks for the shining example of the slippery slope that got the 2nd Amendment to where it is today.
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.
Sorry, but I want enough firepower to make a platoon of Reno's irregulars think twice about knocking my door in.
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.Another“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.’”
“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.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?“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.’"
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.Another“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.’”
“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.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?“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.’"
Capice? or do I have to explain futher?...lol
Reloading - her mouth most probably, lol.
"Would, say, keeping concealed carry from convicted felons be a "reasonable restriction"?
I'll be making "The Saul Alinsky Dancers" later
Or even Scooter Libby.
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
Who could afford to feed them?
"I've yet to see any convincing evidence that the 2nd is a personal right conferred to individuals."
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.