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

To: labette

The right is reserved for, but not restricted to the individual. I don't think anyone here would dispute need for guns by our military or police agencies.


18 posted on 12/17/2004 5:24:19 PM PST by superskunk (Quinn's Law: Liberalism always produces the exact opposite of it's stated intent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]


To: superskunk
The right is reserved for, but not restricted to the individual. I don't think anyone here would dispute need for guns by our military or police agencies.

Only individuals have rights. Governments, which include the military and police divisions thereof, have powers. In some times and some places, police did not have the power to be armed with firearms. In Great Britain for instance, until they started disarming the people, the "Bobbies" rarely went armed, although supervisors could bring arms to a scene if necessary. I'd at least say that the police should have to power to have any arms denied to any law abiding citizen. Of course since "shall not be infringed" says that citizens have the right to have any kind of arms, that need not a be any great restriction.

21 posted on 12/17/2004 5:30:13 PM PST by El Gato (Activist Judges can twist the Constitution into anything they want ... or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: superskunk

Sometimes I cram too much thought into too few words, and vice versa. You and I have the right to bear our personal firearms. When all other efforts have failed, we the collective also have the right to restore this bill of rights. I don't think "police" have anything to do with the second ammendment. Just opinion.


32 posted on 12/17/2004 5:49:28 PM PST by labette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

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