Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Newt: Right to Bear Arms is a Human Right
YouTube.com ^ | Apr 13, 2012 | Newt Gingrich

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 ...


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; gingrich; guns; newt; think
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-73 next last
"If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures." - Alexander Hamilton
"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates wouldn’t make any sense at all." -- President Ronald Reagan
"A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." - Thomas Paine 1792

1 posted on 04/18/2012 8:42:05 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

It’s more than a human right, its a Fundamental CIVIL Right. I want a President that will work to bring Federal Code into compliance with the US Constitution. Why is that so difficult for these people who are running for President???


2 posted on 04/18/2012 8:45:47 AM PDT by BCR #226 (02/07 SOT www.extremefirepower.com...The BS stops when the hammer drops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
To use the language of our founders - it is a NATURAL right.

Humans are born with the natural right to be free, to be armed, and to speak their mind, to hold contrary opinions, to resist tyranny, to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

3 posted on 04/18/2012 8:59:05 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BCR #226

And why not a national language, too??? I get sick when I see road signs in another language AFTER ALMOS 200 YEARS.


4 posted on 04/18/2012 9:02:01 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
So here is an interesting question. If the right to bear arms is a human right, is there any point at which you draw the line? I'm not trying to be a jerk wad or start a flame war, I'm asking a real philosophical question. Is there a line? If so where is it? If not what are the logical consequences?

I'm not talking little stuff the libs get hung up on like assault weapons and high capacity magazines. I'm talking full auto crew served heavy machine guns. How about guided missiles. I mean nothing says get off my lawn like a TOW Missile. What about nukes, chemical and bio weapons?

If the right to weapons is a human right is demanding that Iran give up their nukes a violation of their human rights? I'm sure their lawyers will be quick to point that out so we need to have an answer ready.

Is the right to bear arms am individual right? Hence the line is drawn at crew served since that by its nature is a collective right. Or is the limit at some level of lethality. One person can make a species ending bio weapon, but should anyone be allowed to have unlimited power to end the entire human race?
5 posted on 04/18/2012 9:07:43 AM PDT by GonzoGOP (There are millions of paranoid people in the world and they are all out to get me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoGOP
I'm talking full auto crew served heavy machine guns. How about guided missiles. I mean nothing says get off my lawn like a TOW Missile. What about nukes, chemical and bio weapons?

You have the right to own them. You do not have the right to endanger your innocent neighbours with them.

Just like your .22LR pistol

6 posted on 04/18/2012 9:10:10 AM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard
You have the right to own them. You do not have the right to endanger your innocent neighbors with them.
Just like your .22LR pistol


OK lest work out that logic. In an armed populace there is a fairly tight limit on the damage one deranged guy can do with a .22LR. Heck give him an AK-47 and some spare mags. Still with an armed populace he gets off one burst and is then cut to ribbons by return fire from the people around him.

That doesn't work with a chemical, radiological or especially a bioweapon you don't even know he used it until million are dead. And then there is no good way to track it back to where it came from.

When people think of weapons they tend to think of firearms. Firearms are self correcting in an armed populace. But the right to bear arms as a generic statement is not limited to firearms. Exotic, area effect weapons who's use is not immediately apparent are a situation of a non self regulating issue. If the unlimited right to bear arms is a universal human right then when Mahmoud shows up at the airport with a nuke you have to let him keep it. You can retaliate, but there is no defense. You must always accept the first strike.
7 posted on 04/18/2012 9:24:08 AM PDT by GonzoGOP (There are millions of paranoid people in the world and they are all out to get me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GonzoGOP
With rights also comes responsibility.
8 posted on 04/18/2012 9:27:45 AM PDT by Conservative4Ever (Waiting for the new tagline to download)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GonzoGOP
Mahmoud shows up at the airport with a nuke he is endangering his innocent neighbours with it.
9 posted on 04/18/2012 9:31:02 AM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GonzoGOP
The founders used privately owned cannons and ships to defend the new United States. And cannons are crew served weapons.

/johnny

10 posted on 04/18/2012 9:33:01 AM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard
He is endangering his innocent neighbours with it.

Devils Advocate Mode

How so? He is merely possessing a weapon. Just like that 22LR you spoke of. If there are no limits you can't do anything until after he uses the weapon.

/Devils Advocate Mode

Or is there some limit based on the destructiveness of the weapon in question? And if so where is that limit to be set, and who sets it? Because the libs are going to want to set it at pointed sticks. So when they try we need to have our arguments fleshed out and responses ready.

I want to win this argument. To be honest I have never been able to come up with a good way to draw that line. An AK-47 should be legal. A nuke shouldn't be. But there is a lot of gray between those two points on the right to bear arms continuum.
11 posted on 04/18/2012 9:40:06 AM PDT by GonzoGOP (There are millions of paranoid people in the world and they are all out to get me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
Here is the problem with any 'gun control': the knowledge to design and build them is everywhere, and machine tools are everywhere. (Pass that link on, patriots, and grab it for yourself.)

Suck it, gun grabbers.

12 posted on 04/18/2012 9:48:24 AM PDT by backwoods-engineer (I will vote against ANY presidential candidate who had non-citizen parents.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
The founders used privately owned cannons and ships to defend the new United States. And cannons are crew served weapons.

Good call, so crew served is in. Perhaps the limit could be projectile weapons. The founders were limited to roundshot and canister. Exploding shot wasn't in common use at that point. If it does kinetic damage with a projectile it is legal. That covers everything from a bow and arrow through roundshot, even up to the discarding sabot round from the 120mm on the M1A2. No HE, no nukes, no chem, no bio.
13 posted on 04/18/2012 9:49:20 AM PDT by GonzoGOP (There are millions of paranoid people in the world and they are all out to get me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GonzoGOP
. Perhaps the limit could be projectile weapons.

Knives, swords, and pikes are arms, as well.

/johnny

14 posted on 04/18/2012 9:52:17 AM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GonzoGOP
A nuke shouldn't be.

Did you know that private ownership of nuclear weapons acutally is legal? That almost every deployed US nuclear weapon was at one time privately owned?

Carrying one, for example, in an airport necessarily exposes other folks to a radiological hazard. Furthermore, the airport owner and the air carriers are no more required to let their customers bring nukes on their property than they are required to let their customers bring .22 pistols on their property.

15 posted on 04/18/2012 9:52:37 AM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: backwoods-engineer
machine tools are everywhere.

Not everywhere. I keep mine out in the shop, and rarely bring them into the kitchen. ;)

/johnny

16 posted on 04/18/2012 9:54:04 AM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GonzoGOP
No HE

Grenades have been around since the 16th century. Hence the term grenadier. Keep the HE. And biowarfare has been around as long as people have been using a trebuchet to throw corpses over city walls.

Wells have been poisoned during warfare since before written history.

/johnny

17 posted on 04/18/2012 9:58:36 AM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GonzoGOP

So, what you’re getting at is that I have no right to own and operate a 40MM Bofors auto cannon?


18 posted on 04/18/2012 10:07:48 AM PDT by Noumenon ("I tell you, gentlemen, we have a problem on our hands." Col. Nicholson-The Bridge on the River Qwai)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

This is why I supported Newt in the primary. He has political savy and wit that Mitt and the establishment do not.


19 posted on 04/18/2012 10:47:12 AM PDT by Arcy ("I want to know how God created this world." - Albert Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Noumenon
So, what you’re getting at is that I have no right to own and operate a 40MM Bofors auto cannon?

Actually the 40mm Bofors would be OK. The question is would you have to obtain and explosive handling permit to store the ammo? A few hundred rounds of 9mm isn't much of a fire hazard. A few hundred rounds of 40mm is. If you need a permit to store the ammo it is not an unrestricted human right. If you don't require a permit the guy next door would be allowed to store a ton of dynamite in a non temperature controlled garage where he does welding. See how complex this gets.
20 posted on 04/18/2012 10:52:21 AM PDT by GonzoGOP (There are millions of paranoid people in the world and they are all out to get me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie; Arcy; All

In the interest of ‘full disclosure’, Newt isn’t consistent about the 2nd amendment either.

From the Gun Owners of America:

Gun Owners of America: Newt Ain’t Great on 2nd Amendment Rights, Broke His Promise to America

http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.wordpress.com/2011/11/28/gun-owners-of-america-newt-aint-great-on-2nd-amendment-rights-broke-his-promise-to-america/

Prior to the “Republican Revolution” of 1994, Rep. Newt Gingrich of Georgia had earned an A rating with Gun Owners of America. But that all changed in 1995, after Republicans were swept to power and Gingrich became Speaker of the House.

The Republicans gained the majority, thanks in large part to gun owners outraged by the Clinton gun ban. And upon taking the reins of the House, Speaker Gingrich said famously that, “As long as I am Speaker of this House, no gun control legislation is going to move in committee or on the floor of this House and there will be no further erosion of their rights.”

His promise didn’t hold up, however, and his GOA rating quickly dropped to well below the “C-level.” In 1996, the Republican-led Congress passed the “gun free school zones act,” creating criminal safe zones like Virginia Tech, where the only person armed was a murderous criminal. Speaker Newt Gingrich voted for the bill containing this ban.[1]

The same bill also contained the now infamous Lautenberg gun ban, which lowered the threshold for losing one’s Second Amendment rights to a mere misdemeanor.[2] Gun owners could, as a result of this ban, lose their gun rights forever for non-violent shouting matches that occurred in the home — and, in many cases, lose their rights without a jury trial.

While a legislator might sometimes vote for a spending bill which contains objectionable amendments, that was clearly NOT the case with Newt Gingrich in 1996. Speaking on Meet the Press in September of that year, Speaker Gingrich said the Lautenberg gun ban was “a very reasonable position.”[3] He even refused to cosponsor a repeal of the gun ban during the next Congress — despite repeated requests to do so.[4]

Also in 1996, Speaker Gingrich cast his vote for an anti-gun terror bill which contained several harmful provisions. For example, one of the versions he supported (in March of that year) contained a DeLauro amendment that would have severely punished gun owners for possessing a laser sighting device while committing an infraction as minor as speeding on a federal reservation.[5] (Not only would this provision have stigmatized laser sights, it would have served as a first step to banning these items.) Another extremely harmful provision was the Schumer amendment to “centralize Federal, State and Local police.”[6]

Final passage of H.R. 3610, Sept. 28, 1996 at: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll455.xml .

Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) warned his colleagues about the hidden dangers in H.R. 3610, and in regard to the Kohl ban, noted that it would “prohibit most persons from carrying unloaded firearms in their automobiles.”

See Gingrich’s vote at: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll455.xml .

[3] Associated Press, “Gingrich Favors Handgun Ban for Domestic Abuse Convicts,” Deseret News, Sept. 16, 1996. The full quote reveals how much Speaker Gingrich had adopted the anti-gunners’ line of thinking: “I’m very much in favor of stopping people who engage in violence against their spouses from having guns,” the Georgia Republican said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I think that’s a very reasonable position.”


21 posted on 04/18/2012 11:07:30 AM PDT by AuntB (Illegal immigration is simply more "share the wealth" socialism and a CRIME not a race!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard
Did you know that private ownership of nuclear weapons acutally is legal?

Nice try, but that those are licensed contractors only. If you need a license it is not an unrestriced human right. I have a problem with explosives being handled by people who haven't even passed safety test. Much less bio and radiological weapons.

There are different levels of rights. Unrestricted rights, life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. I'm pro life because the right to life is clearly stated as being an unrestricted human right. Note that these right apply to all humans, as opposed to the next type of right.

There are rights of citizenship. Despite what the dem's appear to think the right to vote is a right of citizens only. The right to carry arms may be interpreted as this kind of right. Having a well ordered foreign militia on US soil doesn't seem like something the founding fathers would have considered a good idea.

The next level are no longer rights as such, but default privileges. Driving on a public road, piloting an aircraft, practicing medicine. You have to pass a test proving competency to get these privileges. Responsibility assumes competency. If you don't know how to fly a plane you can't go down to the airport and take off in an 747. It doesn't matter if you bought it and take personal responsibility for it. Someone who doesn't know what they are doing is a menace to everyone else, so it is a privilege not a right. As a practical matter firearms and explosives fall into this category today.

Finally there are restricted privileges. These are things that default to no. Radiologicals fall into this category today. You have to prove you need them or you are not permitted to have them.

By declaring weapons of all kinds to be an unrestricted human right Gingrich puts it into that first category.
22 posted on 04/18/2012 11:08:35 AM PDT by GonzoGOP (There are millions of paranoid people in the world and they are all out to get me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GonzoGOP
. I have a problem with explosives being handled by people who haven't even passed safety test.

Sarah Brady has a problem with pistols being handled by people who haven't even passed a safety test.

23 posted on 04/18/2012 11:14:38 AM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard
Carrying one, for example, in an airport necessarily exposes other folks to a radiological hazard.

Never dealt with the buggers have you. No radiological hazard as long as the casing is in place. A properly built nuke is without doubt the safest weapons system ever developed. In fact they are a heck of a lot safer than that .22LR. People get accidentally killed or injured by firearms all the time. There is almost no way to be accidentally injured by a nuke, short of dropping it on your foot. If you set one off it is usually because you intended to.

So answer the question does Mr Al Queda get to have his nukes or not? If not you are not looking at an unrestricted human right.
24 posted on 04/18/2012 11:15:36 AM PDT by GonzoGOP (There are millions of paranoid people in the world and they are all out to get me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GonzoGOP
As I said: Furthermore, the airport owner and the air carriers are no more required to let their customers bring nukes on their property than they are required to let their customers bring .22 pistols on their property.
25 posted on 04/18/2012 11:17:58 AM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard
Sarah Brady has a problem with pistols being handled by people who haven't even passed a safety test.

As I said see how complex this gets. Do you support the right to purchase or manufacture unlimited quantities of explosives without having to pass some form of licensing or without restrictions for storage and transportation? What about fire codes?
26 posted on 04/18/2012 11:19:06 AM PDT by GonzoGOP (There are millions of paranoid people in the world and they are all out to get me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard

As I said. Can he have a nuke in his garage. Yes or No are the options here.


27 posted on 04/18/2012 11:20:28 AM PDT by GonzoGOP (There are millions of paranoid people in the world and they are all out to get me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: GonzoGOP
as long as the casing is in place. A properly built nuke

You're assuming facts not in evidence, particularly with Mr. Al Quaeda.

People get accidentally killed or injured by firearms all the time.

No, people get negligently killed or injured by idiots mishandling firearms.

28 posted on 04/18/2012 11:20:52 AM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: AuntB

“Gingrich Favors Handgun Ban for Domestic Abuse Convicts,” Deseret News, Sept. 16, 1996. The full quote reveals how much Speaker Gingrich had adopted the anti-gunners’ line of thinking: “I’m very much in favor of stopping people who engage in violence against their spouses from having guns,” the Georgia Republican said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I think that’s a very reasonable position.”

Well, he has some ex spouses that aren’t all that fond of him. LOL

I figure Callista has him trussed up good in a chastity belt which she yanks tighter from time to time. He seems to obey.

Newt always looks out for Newt.


29 posted on 04/18/2012 11:23:12 AM PDT by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard
You're assuming facts not in evidence, particularly with Mr. Al Quaeda.

And you are obfuscating to avoid answering the question. Does Mr. Al Quaeda get to have a nuke in his garage? Yes or No.
30 posted on 04/18/2012 11:24:01 AM PDT by GonzoGOP (There are millions of paranoid people in the world and they are all out to get me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: GonzoGOP
Can he have a nuke in his garage.

That's two questions, not one.

1) Can he have a Teller-Ulam fusion weapon? I see no way to prohibit it him doing so, without violating the Constitution.

2) Can he keep it in his garage? Define your terms, here. No, I'm not nitpicking. It matters.

31 posted on 04/18/2012 11:26:50 AM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: GonzoGOP

Is “Mr. Al Quaeda” an american citizen?


32 posted on 04/18/2012 11:32:04 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard
No, I'm not nitpicking. It matters.

Why? If you postulate that a person has the right under the constitution to have such a weapon, yet restrict where they can store it on their own property you are in fact restricting the right. That is like when the liberals say you can own a firearm, but can never carry it on your person. It is a right without meaning.
33 posted on 04/18/2012 11:34:07 AM PDT by GonzoGOP (There are millions of paranoid people in the world and they are all out to get me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: trisham
Is “Mr. Al Quaeda” an American citizen?

If as postulated it is a basic human right like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness it doesn't matter. If it is a right of citizenship like voting it does. So the question is what type of right is possession of a firearm?
34 posted on 04/18/2012 11:36:24 AM PDT by GonzoGOP (There are millions of paranoid people in the world and they are all out to get me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: GonzoGOP

I agree with Newt that it is a human right to defend oneself. However, if he is an enemy of this country, Mr. AQ has the right to execution.


35 posted on 04/18/2012 11:41:44 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: GonzoGOP
Why?

Just answer the question. It matters.

What do you mean by "garage"? What do you propose the environment surrounding that "garage" to be?

36 posted on 04/18/2012 11:42:44 AM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: GonzoGOP

Good post. Our Constitution grants the right to bear arms to American citizens.

Our rights must be protected. If other nations want that right, they need to fight for it and work to keep it.

That is our business. The rest of the world is their business.


37 posted on 04/18/2012 11:43:42 AM PDT by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: dforest
Our Constitution grants the right to bear arms to American citizens.

I do NOT agree. It guarantees the protection of a right that exists whether the Constitution exists or not. Nowhere does it suggest that said right is exclusive to American Citizens.

38 posted on 04/18/2012 11:46:39 AM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: AuntB

But politicians just say things like that to get elected. It shouldn’t matter./sarc


39 posted on 04/18/2012 11:49:01 AM PDT by Pan_Yans Wife ("For the sake of our party we must stand united, whoever our nominee is."-Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard
Just answer the question. It matters.

You obviously have something in mind. Rather than playing gotcha games why not just spit it out. Why does it matter?
40 posted on 04/18/2012 11:51:17 AM PDT by GonzoGOP (There are millions of paranoid people in the world and they are all out to get me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: GonzoGOP
You obviously have something in mind.

Yes. I have in mind making sure we're talking about the same thing before I answer. So (again): What do you mean by "garage"? What do you propose the environment surrounding that "garage" to be?

You asked a question. That's fine ... but I think it's fair for me to ask for clarification if I'm not sure exactly what you mean.

41 posted on 04/18/2012 11:55:55 AM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard

The Constitution is the American Constitution. Without the Constitution, you would not be owning a gun. The left would make sure you never had a gun in your little hands and there would be nothing to give them pause.

It is not our right to grant gun ownership in someone elses country.

I don’t want people in America who are not citizens running around with weapons. They could be the enemy, yet they would have every right to own a gun here.


42 posted on 04/18/2012 12:00:51 PM PDT by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: dforest
Without the Constitution, you would not be owning a gun. The left would make sure

Irrelevant. Does the right exist because of the Constitution?

NO.

I don’t want people in America who are not citizens running around with weapons.

Then you're asking for new gun control laws to be passed, laws which I would vigorously oppose.

43 posted on 04/18/2012 12:11:41 PM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
"machine tools are everywhere." Not everywhere. I keep mine out in the shop, and rarely bring them into the kitchen. ;)/johnny

Best keep a copy of that PDF out in the shop, then. And a few copies of Ragnar Benson's books, and "The CNC AR".

:-)

44 posted on 04/18/2012 12:12:42 PM PDT by backwoods-engineer (I will vote against ANY presidential candidate who had non-citizen parents.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: dforest
Natural rights are granted by God.

The Contitution was written to keep government from infringing on those rights.

The Constitution is a grant of POWER to the federal government by the states.

That's all it is. A document to form and LIMIT the powers of a federal government.

Listing some rights is in no way meant to restrict the rights of the people, or the states.

/johnny

45 posted on 04/18/2012 12:23:10 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard; GonzoGOP
1) Can he have a Teller-Ulam fusion weapon? I see no way to prohibit it him doing so, without violating the Constitution.

Sure you can. This is so easy, you should have thought of it yourself: STATE laws. The States are not constrained to enumerated powers like the Federal government is. Yes, they are constrained to the protection of individual rights, but what prohibits a state from passing a law against possession of lithium deuteride or uranium (components of the Teller-Ulam weapon)? Nothing.

The right to bear "arms" is a right to bear weapons that can be held by your human arms, not weapons of mass death. "Arms" are projectile, cutting or blunt trauma weapons, wielded by an individual human.

Arms do not include various weaponized diseases or radioactive concoctions, nor do they include your posited "giant tub of lithium deuteride" (to quote Robert A. Heinlein).

This imagined continuum of arms from knife to Teller-Ulam nuke is a fabrication.

46 posted on 04/18/2012 12:24:43 PM PDT by backwoods-engineer (I will vote against ANY presidential candidate who had non-citizen parents.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: backwoods-engineer
The right to bear "arms" is a right to bear weapons that can be held by your human arms,

Not true. Cannons are legal. And I dang sure can't budge one of my uncle's cannons without a crew. And he lives in California.

/johnny

47 posted on 04/18/2012 12:28:09 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: backwoods-engineer
he States are not constrained to enumerated powers like the Federal government is.

So ... do you think it's acceptable for a State to prohibit the ownership of all guns including a .22 pistol?

"Arms" are projectile, cutting or blunt trauma weapons, wielded by an individual human.

That interpretation is inconsistent with revolution-era America, where crew served weapons were privately owned, and would be a surprise to the negotiators of the Strategic ARMS Limitation Treaty ...

48 posted on 04/18/2012 12:32:23 PM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard

Newt was advocating going to the UN with this. Once you do that, you give up power to the UN to grant gun rights. Say you have a compliant UN and they said “yes, gun rights for the whole world in every country”. Sounds terrific, doesn’t it?

That very same UN would then be able to revoke gun rights anytime after that for the whole world if they wanted too.

I think that would be very bad for the US.

Compare it to how states have given up so much autonomy to the Federal government. Once you take the tease because it sounded so good at the time, you lose power.

Newt tries to go overly big here, That is one of my problems with Newt. He is a one worlder. That is never going to happen without tyranny.

I want my President to guarantee me that the rights protected by the Constitution of the United states will not be subject to, or infringed upon by anyone, anywhere.


49 posted on 04/18/2012 12:32:35 PM PDT by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

I would argue that Self Defense is a human right, and that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is the best way to achieve it, but same difference.


50 posted on 04/18/2012 12:34:33 PM PDT by Little Ray (FOR the best Conservative in the Primary; AGAINST Obama in the General.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-73 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson