Second Amendment subject to REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS - Giuliani

Fox News ^ | March 12, 2007 | Brit Hume video

[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."

[TheThinker]

Thank you for your explanation of the second amendment. Someone once said that the government of the U.S. is different from all others in that we have to pass laws limiting freedom while other countries have to pass laws granting any freedom at all.

[TheThinker]

Thank you for your explanation of the second amendment. Someone once said that the government of the U.S. is different from all others in that we have to pass laws limiting freedom while other countries have to pass laws granting any freedom at all.

[Hatband]

Even the Dummies consider the old wheeze about nukes and the 2nd to be extremely stupid. Getting strange around here when we have posters that wouldn't even qualify for a Dummy.

[neverhillorat]

You will pray for anarchy if Hillorat is the next President. I think that he`s right by the way, do we want convicted felons to have firearms?

[mountn man]

The US Constitution never dealt with rights of the people, else why are there State Constitutions? Right moron?

Ooooops!!!!!!!!

The Bill of Rights

The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of 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, namely:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

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.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

[Zeroisanumber]

Perhaps I have my terminology mixed up here. I admit that I'm no expert on military hardware, but when I say "recoilless rifle" I'm thinking of this:

The reason that I oppose private ownership of ordinance of that caliber is out of concern for the damage that an accidental discharge or mishandled explosives can do. Mess up with even the most powerful handgun or rifle and the collateral damage is limited, mess up with a beast like the one pictured above and you'll level a storefront.

With your line of thinking, you must be a proponent of assault weapon bans, or an opponent of conceal and carry.

Not at all. I think that "assault weapon bans" are unconstitutional, and concealed carry solves far more problems than it causes. My opposition to private citizens owning crew serviced weapons is the "oops" factor. Even well `trained professionals in the military screw up with that type of dangerous equipment from time to time, and the potential for even a well trained armature to do major damage in a population center is just too high. That's not to mention what criminals and terrorists could do with that sort of equipment if it was more readily accessible.

[AZRepublican]

Madison: "The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

Doesn't sound like the US Constitution was left with any power over the people, does it?

[mountn man]

Militias are made up of the body of people of a state, that is who the "people" the second referes to, not people in an ordinary sense.

Prove it.

If you are correct, then every where the Bill of Rights mentions "the people" would imply the exact same thing that you're saying the second says about "the people".

Never in the wording of the BOR do the authors stipulate a change in the meanings of people or persons.

Since no change is ever stipulated, the same respect to wording has to be given equally each and every time.

So by your definition, YOU don't have the freedom of speech. YOU don't have the right to a speedy trial. And on and on. But the state does.

[FreedomCalls]

Gee, a 7 day waiting period.

Did you miss the other part -- no concealed carry, no automatic weapons?

[AZRepublican]

> Prove it. I think I did with the link to the federalist article on the ruling. Paul Madison quotes the conventions talking of the "body of the people" who were trained in arms.

If you are correct, then every where the Bill of Rights mentions "the people" would imply the exact same thing that you're saying the second says about "the people".

The bill of rights is all about the "rights of the people" to be free of Congress abridging the freedom of speech, disarming state militias, soldiers quartered in any house, etc. It did not oust the States bill of rights.

[mountn man]

I tottally understand what you're saying about the oops factor. And I agree with you.

But playing devils advocate again.

The Ooops factor is exactly why we need to ban all guns everywhere.
"What if" a child gets a gun, and takes it to school.
"What if" a child finds a gun in his Daddy's drawers and accidentally shoots his buddy.
"What if" someone breaks into a house and steals the guns.
"What if" someone breaks into the house and takes the gun from the owner, and then shoots him.
"What if" someone hears a noise in the house, grabs a gun, and shoots the shadow they see, finding out its there spouse.
"What if"...Ooops.

[ellery]

FEDERALIST No. 46 -- The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared, James Madison:

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it."

FEDERALIST No. 29 -- Concerning the Militia, Alexander Hamilton:

"This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."


http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

[mountn man]

"What if" a child finds a gun in his Daddy's drawers and accidentally shoots his buddy.

What was the kid doing in his daddys drawers?

And how did his daddy manage to keep a gun in there? :)

[mountn man]

Is that Rummy in that picture?

[ellery]

When the 2nd amendment was written, I doubt the founding fathers had WMD (which are arms), tanks, machine guns, hand grenades, etc. in mind. If by arms, the writers meant single shot musket and maybe rifles, I think everyone is on board with that. I don't think you should be able to keep a nuke in your house and even a hand grenade or RPG is out of bounds.

Actually, WMD would be ordnance.

When the 1st amendment was written, I doubt the founding fathers had in mind the internet, which any citizen can use to broadcast dangerous opinions around the world. Clearly the 1st amendment should be limited to speech transmitted in-person, by town crier or on paper.

[ellery]

The Bill of Rights is a misnomer, anyway -- it does not list rights. It lists explicit restrictions on government power.

[indianrightwinger]

I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR RUDY AND I WILL NEVER DONATE $1 TO HIS CAMPAIGN! BTW, I am one of the rarest of the rare Indian Indians that is pro-2nd and is an EPL member of NRA.

[indianrightwinger]

I take a different point of view......when in doubt, interpret the constitution more favorably to the citizens and ask for proof from the government to claim authority.

Otherwise, you will be in China very soon.