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

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: El Gato

I understand the distinction. That's why I was careful to use the word 'need' and not 'right', thought 'power' would have been more accurate.


23 posted on 12/17/2004 5:32:34 PM PST by superskunk (Quinn's Law: Liberalism always produces the exact opposite of it's stated intent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | 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