Posted on 03/12/2007 10:10:00 PM PDT by anonsquared
Everyone needs to see the video clip of Giuliani that Brit Hume aired today.
Go to http://www.foxnews.com/specialreport/ and scroll down to Race for 08 and click on the picture of Rudy to pull up the video player. Then you'll have to click on the video called Rallying for Rudy. It starts with Vitter endorsing him but keep watching for Rudy.
Asked if he would veto any bill impinging the 2nd amendment - he refused to say without first seeing the legislation.
Then the money quote...
"THERE'S A RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. THAT IS A PERSONAL RIGHT. THERE CAN BE REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
No doubt. Spouting liberal platitudes like they mean something. Do they think they will impress us with their stupidity? That their absurd BS will just go unquestioned?
Well... wrong. But thanks for playing.
As expressed, they are "declaratory and restrictive clauses". This means they declare something to be so, and impose a restriction. In regards to the Second Amendment, it says RKBA is a Right of the People and it shall not be infringed.
Period. End of story. FedGov, States, home owners associations, whatever... Hands Off RKBA.
Easy-peasy.
And yes, I have the quotes from the Founders to back this up. Let's start with this one...
"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals … It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789
Correct, and in the case of the 2nd amendment it recognizes the individual right is inalienable... cannot be taken away. It must be an individual right... not granted by the founding documents, but rather preexistent.
jw
Wodger just how a candidate that ran on NO restictions on gun ownership, zero, zip, nada would do against Rudy?
DId you read the whole thing, because they did address state level. I read the whole thing and that's what I got out of it.
I guess we'll see. I know Ron Paul is a no restriction guy, and I think Hunter is too, but I'm not sure on him.
Anarchy,sign me up.
No way no how,will I vote for Rudy!
And how many Constitutional absolutionists have we ever seen in the Presidency?
Would that action by Reagan have been enough for you to vote for Carter? If your answer is "yes" you are to be pitied.
And how many Constitutional absolutionists have we ever seen in the Presidency?
Would that action by Reagan have been enough for you to vote for Carter? If your answer is "yes" you are to be pitied.
I don't think any State would ever consider taking the right away, only regulate it:
Section XIII of the State of Texas Constitution:
Every person shall have the right to keep and bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself or the State, under such regulations as the Legislature may prescribe.
Period. End of story. FedGov, States, home owners associations, whatever... Hands Off RKBA.
Section XIII of the State of Texas Constitution:
Every person shall have the right to keep and bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself or the State, under such regulations as the Legislature may prescribe.
Thanks for attempting to sound like you know what you are talking about.
Just changing the wording in their State Constitution would be able to over-ride a protection for an Individual Right. Else some Southern States would still have slavery laws on the books.
Thanks for continuing to prove you haven't read the decision and prefer gun control to Individual Rights.
And as the DC court decision points out, and the Founders were in agreement with, any "regulation" that makes it impossible to freely exercise a Right is an infringement and therefore null.
Keep trying though. At least a few people out there will swallow your anti-gun BS...
Thomas Jefferson was against a Constitution that did not contain a bill of rights to protect the people not against themselves, but from the federal government: "I hope, therefore, a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the federal government as they are already guarded against their State governments, in most instances." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788. ME 7:98
Because a mind is a terrible thing to waste without facts, see here:
http://federalistblog.us/2007/03/dc_circuits_2nd_amendment_holding_too_weak_to_survive.html
The next amendment is: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. James Madison 1833.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government. St. George Tucker. 1803
Game. Set. Match.
The First 10 Amendments to the Constitution as Ratified by the States
December 15, 1791
Preamble
Congress OF THE United States begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
This is all the "incorporation" the BoR's protections for pre-existing Rights requires.
"Traffic is crazy enough around here without some idiot mounting a recoilless rifle on his truck."
Our local ski resort actually uses one of the old VN era Recoilless Rifles for avalanche control. Kinda neat to watch.
They are talkin about the right of the militia to be armed you idiot.
I've seen that on the Discovery Channel. It is neat.
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.