Skip to comments.Newt: Right to Bear Arms is a Human Right
Posted on 04/18/2012 8:41:55 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
Newt, showing up the anti-2nd Amendment, lying, left-wing, Progressive Liberal on yet another issue important to conservatives.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
COOL! I thought they were classified as “destructive devices” and required a Class 3 license.
I’d love a 37mm Hotchkiss gun... especially an electrically cranked Hotchkiss gun!
You know, I think maybe they meant that “We The People” would have to be the enforcement clause.
And the keeping of heavy weapons in our "garages" (whatever exactly is meant by that).
God Love ya both! Exactly. So we have to keep our means of enforcement.
Seriously ... A "garage" could be an underground structure in Manhattan, a part of a house in suburbia, a shed in the middle of the desert hundreds of miles from anything ...
No, and that wasn't my point.
One does not have the right to violate other people's rights. I hope you would agree with that. Even the "right to life" does not authorize murder for the purpose of cannibalism (even in the absence of any other food source).
Similarly, the right to keep and bear arms does not authorize conduct which threatens the life, health, or property of others. How one "keeps and bears" a rifle or pistol differs from how one "keeps and bears" grenades, artillery, poisons, nukes ... in order to not threaten the life, health, or property of one's neighbours.
Cannons are legal, but the Founders sure thought of "arms" as being exactly as I described. Don't have the time to dig up quotes just now, but when the 2nd was being debated, small arms are what was in view.
Now, does that mean crew-served weapons should be prohibited from individual possession? ABSOLUTELY NOT, and I don't believe they should. I'm talking about the purview of the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution (limited Federal powers), which was the original question (tub of deuteride, remember?).
I think government should judge actions, not possession of contraband.
The 2d Amendment has NOTHING to do with putting game on the table. It has two purposes ...
(a)Instant formability of militias and
(b) it is a safeguard against any government using arms AGAINST US!
(c)Along the way it enables free men and women to defend themselves against criminals when seconds count and the police are minutes away
Therefore, if the government has Ma Deuce, I should be able to have Ma Deuce. I don't particularly want to have a machine gun, (not when I can knock either eye out of a sparrow at 600 meters with my trusty Swede Mauser in 6.5X55 ...honest) but if my fellow potential militia men do, good show! Were this country ever occupied, the occupiers would suffer heavy casualties from even the humble .22 long rifle hollow point, which in the right hands can do heavy damage at 100 yards,(since many of us can very quickly put 10 in a 1-ft circle at that range!) the shooter then perhaps picking himself up an AK or other heavier weapon. Scoped .308s, even 30-30's, which are the ballistic equivalent of the 7.62X39, would certainly make invading this outfit a costly business ... as the Nazis, Commies, Japs knew. And what the Legft conveniently ignores in all their condescending prattle about shooting ducks with Pa's old shotgun... or more than likely they'll say "rifle."
Hunting? Lots of fun. Got nothing to do with the Constitution.
Yep. I have a favorite semi-auto rifle that I practiced pop-up shots with for hunting squirrels in tall trees. Little buggers seem to know you have a rifle and just peek a head around for a second.
The largest land animal (Jumbo the elephant) was put down with a .22 short by a vet after being struck by a train.
My listing for the .22 LR has an energy of about 97 ft lbs. That's about the equivalent of a baseball bat swing, in a very small cross section.