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 ...
So, your copy of the Constitution says, "The Right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?
You've got a typo. Either that, or you are just another gun hating troll sh*tbag.
We are told by the District that the Second Amendment was written in response to fears that the new federal government would disarm the state militias by preventing men from bearing arms while in actual militia service, or by preventing them from keeping arms at home in preparation for such service. Thus the Amendment should be understood to check federal power to regulate firearms only when federal legislation was directed at the abolition of state militias, because the Amendment’s exclusive concern was the preservation of those entities. At first blush, it seems passing strange that the able lawyers and statesmen in the First Congress (including James Madison) would have expressed a sole concern for state militias with the language of the Second Amendment. Surely there was a more direct locution, such as “Congress shall make no law disarming the state militias” or “States have a right to a well-regulated militia.”
Well... duh.
>>>The men who founded this country wanted to make sure that if the government they founded got as oppressive as the one they overthrew, there would be a mechanism in place to overthrow it. <<<
Ding! Ding! Ding! Give that man a cigar!
None. So why expect to nominate one in 2008? Why complain if Guiliani is not also one?
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 even more, if Guiliani saying that he supports "reasonable restrictions" causes you also to throw a fit, you are to be pitied as well.
(s)Yeah, because that whole 'freedom' thing is so way over rated...(/s)
That's like saying that the 1st Amendment only applies to parchment and quill pens. But since Ol' Rudy also supports restrictions on freedom of speech (McCain-Feingold), he probably holds that view too!
Who is the mailitia of?
Miller’s definition of the “Militia,” then, offers further support for the individual right interpretation of the Second Amendment. Attempting to draw a line between the ownership and use of “Arms” for private purposes and the ownership and use of “Arms” for militia purposes would have been an extremely silly exercise on the part of the First Congress if indeed the very survival of the militia depended on men who would bring their commonplace, private arms with them to muster. A ban on the use and ownership of weapons for private purposes, if allowed, would undoubtedly have had a deleterious, if not catastrophic, effect on the readiness of the militia for action. We do not see how one could believe that the First Congress, when crafting the Second Amendment, would have engaged in drawing such a foolish and impractical distinction, and we think the Miller Court recognized as much.
We are notionally governed by our consent. Think about it logically...in order to truly "consent" one must retain the ability to refuse, otherwise the "consent" is not actually given freely, but obtained by an implied threat. It's really not any different than the "submission" demanded by Islam. When the US citizenry is no longer able to resist the coercive compliance with agreed upon rules, we are no longer being governed by our own consent. I'm not saying everyone should go around breaking laws or testing government just for the sake of doing so, but merely reserving the ability to do so.
Oh, and so you believe that this is the ONLY issue that I have against Rudy? You are to be pitied.
Either the place tonight is full of trolls or there are a lot of ignorant people here. As I have repeatedly said, the great Ronald Reagan, whom no one can fault for not being a conservative ALSO supported "reasonable restrictions" and signed the automatic weapons ban into law -- probably the most restrictive federal gun control law ever passed. If even he was not a Second Amendment absolutelist, claiming that Giuliani's support for the Second Amendment, support for an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, and support for "reasonable restrictions" as did Ronald Reagan, does not by itself take away Giuliani's claim to be a conservative. You can fault him for many, many other things, but you cannot fault him for supporting "reasonable restrictions" as has every other conservative President before and including the present one who has said he will sign Carolyn McCarthy's assault weapons ban if it reaches his desk. Those who would support an unelectable Republican -- thereby throwing the election to the Democrats -- or sit 2008 out because Giuliani is not a Second Amendment absolutist -- also giving the presidency in 2008 to either Hillary or Obama -- is doing the country absolutely no good. You're never going to get the 28,000 gun laws that are already on the books erased. All we ask is that no additional laws be passed and someone who will appoint judges who will not impose additional restrictions by judicial fiat.
Then discuss those issues. This one (support for 'reasonable restrictions') is a non-starter.
Gun grabbers are increasingly trying to separate the right to keep and bear arms from its constitutional underpinnings. To everyone but liberals and gun grabbers the word militia implies a body organized for military use. The Supreme Court Miller decision of 1939 held that the militia was 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
To begin with, only the national government was represented at the trial. With nobody arguing to the contrary, the court followed standard court procedure and assumed that the law was constitutional until proven otherwise. If both sides were present, the outcome may have been much different.
However, since only one party showed up, the case will stand in the court records as is. As to the militia, Mr. Justice McReynolds related the beliefs of the Founding Fathers when commenting historically about the Second Amendment. He stated that, ". . .The common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.
"The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.
It is clear that the firearms that are most suited for modern-day militia use are those semi automatic military pattern weapons that the yellow press calls "assault weapons". Since nations such as the Swiss trust their citizenry with true selective fire assault rifles, it seems to me that this country ought to be at least able to trust its law-abiding citizenry with the semi automatic version.
Self-defense is a vital corollary benefit of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But its primary constitutional reason for being is for service in the well-regulated militia which is necessary to the security of a free state. WE must be prepared to maintain that security against even our own forces that are responding to the orders of a tyrannical government, and the only viable way to counter a standing army's qualitative advantage is with a huge quantitative one. Don't let the gun grabbers and their politician allies separate us from the constitutional reason for the right to keep and bear arms. Miltary pattern weapons are precisly the weapons that should be MOST constitutionally protected. Even defenders of the right often neglect the constitutional aspect of it, and concentrate on their near non-existent use in crime.
The modern day individual firearm for a soldier is usually a selective fire assault rifle and/or a semi-auto handgun.
We need to constantly remind the people what the militia in the 2nd amendment is REALLY for..... A citizen body organized for military purposes and by extension, logically equipped with weapons of military utility. Just consider that the founders of our nation had just finished defeating the greatest military power on the planet, thanks in no small part to a citizen militia, armed with military weapons such as the smooth bore Brown Bess musket, and often technologically superior rifled muskets. It is the height of absurdity to think that the second amendment in the Bill of Rights is primarily concerned with shooting bunny rabbits.
If we don't constantly emphasize the constitutional reasons for the Second Amendment than we shall surely lose it, because hunting, while a worthy enterprise, is too trivial a reason to maintain it has a constitutional protection. We need to emphasize to our hunting bretheren that maintenance of the second amendment's constitutional rationale serves to protect their rights to continue to own firearms for hunting. The second amendment is literally the final check for the preservation of our republic from the depredations of untrammeled tyranny.
Rudy isn't even as conservative as Reagan was. We'd get even worse from him. He'd gleefully sign off on Kennedy's "Anything more powerful than a .22LR" bill...
Exactly. (I didn't think I needed the sarcasm tag on that one) :)
Gas stoves pose a similar danger, and are much more widespread than legal high-caliber ordnance would be.
Opposed Pres. Bush's ban on gay marriage. (Jan 2007)
Open Strategic Petroleum Reserve to battle high oil prices. (Feb 2000)
Love and long term attachment needed to represent NY state. (Apr 1999)
Abortion is a woman's right
Extended all city benefits to same-sex couples
The Bill of Rights must be about rights of our government then huh?
Or could it be that it served to spell out the limits of our government so that the rights of the people would not be infringed. Thats the part you tend to overlook. "people" is not another word for government.
Since he thought it was "reasonable" to sue gun manufacturers in 2000, I REALLY DO wish he'd expound at length on what constitutes "reasonable restrictions".
I REALLY DO. :D
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.