Posted on 03/12/2007 10:10:00 PM PDT by anonsquared
Definitely. He let a hint of his true liberal position be known
Although maybe he means "reasonable restrictions" like you can't have a cannon on your rooftop. Or ...
The phrase "reasonable restrictions" is right out of the Sara Brady playbook. It means whatever the anti-gunners want it to mean. According to them England has "reasonable restrictions."
After all, there are "reasonable restrictions" on the First Amendment: pornography
First pornography happens to be legal.
can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater,
No, you can't; however, you can't give everyone a preemptive laryngectomy to prevent their ability to yell if they want. The 2nd amendment is about the right to "keep and bear" not fire at will. You can't use your neighbor's mailbox as a target, but you shouldn't be prevented from buying whatever arm you want and can afford. Restricting peoples ability to buy arms is the same as giving everyone a laryngectomy to prevent abuse of the first amendment. Screw that liberal POS Julie Annie
For example, in your view, do laws against incitement to riot infringe Amendment I?
Similarly, do laws disarming felons infringe II?
All other uses of the term "the right of the people" in the Constitution and BOR have a personal, individual meaning.
Then what the heck are you doing on this forum? Seriously, are you trolling? BUT, just in case you're misguided and not a troll here: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1173434606378 Not to mention that every other one of the bill of rights has been considered an individual right, and somehow this one isn't?
I see this thread has brought out the anti-gun trolls in force. They had every weapon including cannon and individual warships in mind. Ever heard of letters of marque and reprisal? I didn't think so. Oh and because you obviously didn't know, they had grenades in the 18th century.
Me too, but I want the Gatling gun in 30mm
Amazing, simply amazing.
btt
"personal right" does NOT mean individual right. Rudy Guliani is lawyering his response to intentionally avoid saying INDIVIDUAL right.
INDIVIDUAL rights are subject to STRICT SCRUTINY and very difficult to abrogate via regulation.
HOWEVER if it is not an individual right protected by the constitution then a far lower test is applied in judicial review.
This was no misstep, he was protecting the legal ability of the courts to misapply the law via a "reasonable standard" test.
Unfortunatly the MSM and the Bob Dole Style GOP leadership wants to annoint Rudy over any kind of common sense.
You are a leftist...
And you somehow think that changing the right to keep and bear arms into a privilege (which is what the "Brady" bill did) is going to prevent people of criminal intent from breaking a law that prohibits their having guns. ha ha.
In the same place Giuliani does...
try reading the other first nine amendments.
1,2-9 are all INDIVIDUAL rights. It defies logic to postulate otherwise.
In fact in law school professors always botch their logic up when they try and argue otherwise.
You might as well argue the first amendment is a personal right of the collective.
The fact is Rudy Guliani is a left winger in gun control.
Reasonable restrictions is code to keep fire arms away from the "wrong hands", the wrong hands are yours. Remember after 9/11 the democrats lined up saying gun control had to be MORE strict because lax gun laws made 9/11 happen easier.
RINOs are bad for america.
I can't agree with that, but Rudy certainly does not deserve any true American's vote. This guy would get a lot of Americans killed.
Maybe... this Julie-Annie crowd is the new Rosie O'Donnell wing of the Republican party... they hate guns, love perverts and illegals, like to kill babies and hate religious folks...
This Julie-Annie crowd is the new Rosie O'Donnell wing of the Republican party... they hate guns, love perverts and illegals, like to kill babies and hate religious folks...
And gay rights. And free reign for illegal immigrants. And the slaughter of babies.
Pretty sick platform for so-called conservatives!
I kind of thought of them as the Hillary Clinton wing of the Republican party. After all Julie Annie did say that his position on most things was very similar to Hillary's. As far as I'm concerned Clinton, Guiliani, McCain, they only difference the whether they have an D or an R behnd their name.
you have a group of republicans in leadership who think because they don't hunt, gun rights are irrelevant.
They don't understand the USA or the constitution, they are only focused of political party manuvering.
Yep. A fancy Madison Avenue designer label...
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.