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 ...
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...
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.
"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?
Good point!
And you'll never admit that the right to keep and bear arms is an "individual right", will you? read the Constitution, leftie.
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.
Where do Hillary, Obama, and Edwards stand on the RTKBA?
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.
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.
To play devils advocate for a moment.
With your line of thinking, you must be a proponent of assault weapon bans, or an opponent of conceal and carry. The thinking that just because people have these weapons that there will be mass killings in the street, simply because someone was slightly annoyed by another person.
So following your logic that from a public safety standpoint people shouldn't be allowed recoilless rifles. To continue with that line of thinking "assault weapons" should be banned, and conceal and carry should be repealed. For the public safety of course. Why? Because ordinary citizens wouldn't know how to handle such weapons, or have the discipline or knowledge for appropriate use of said weapons.
Excellent point!
> Not to mention over 200 years of precedent.
Nearly as I can tell, 200 years of precedent only points to the second as a limitation upon the power of Congress.
Militias are made up of the body of people of a state, that is who the "people" the second referes to, not people in an ordinary sense.
Duncan Hunter who is running and Fred Thompson who hasn't thown his hat in the ring YET.
Gee, a 7 day waiting period. I guess that won't be enough for Rudy though since he believes there should be REASONABLE restrictions. In layman speak, that would be control of firearms.
Like I said, so long Rudy, you are in it just for the money now. Bye bye.
They stand in the same place as Rooty.
Yeah, call me names, douchebag. That'll prove your point. "The Constitution never dealt with the rights of the people"?? Open a window. The fumes from your meth lab are killing your brain.
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.