Posted on 04/18/2012 8:41:55 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
Newt, showing up the anti-2nd Amendment, lying, left-wing, Progressive Liberal on yet another issue important to conservatives.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
Yes. I have in mind making sure we're talking about the same thing before I answer. So (again): What do you mean by "garage"? What do you propose the environment surrounding that "garage" to be?
You asked a question. That's fine ... but I think it's fair for me to ask for clarification if I'm not sure exactly what you mean.
The Constitution is the American Constitution. Without the Constitution, you would not be owning a gun. The left would make sure you never had a gun in your little hands and there would be nothing to give them pause.
It is not our right to grant gun ownership in someone elses country.
I don’t want people in America who are not citizens running around with weapons. They could be the enemy, yet they would have every right to own a gun here.
Irrelevant. Does the right exist because of the Constitution?
NO.
I don’t want people in America who are not citizens running around with weapons.
Then you're asking for new gun control laws to be passed, laws which I would vigorously oppose.
Best keep a copy of that PDF out in the shop, then. And a few copies of Ragnar Benson's books, and "The CNC AR".
:-)
The Contitution was written to keep government from infringing on those rights.
The Constitution is a grant of POWER to the federal government by the states.
That's all it is. A document to form and LIMIT the powers of a federal government.
Listing some rights is in no way meant to restrict the rights of the people, or the states.
/johnny
Sure you can. This is so easy, you should have thought of it yourself: STATE laws. The States are not constrained to enumerated powers like the Federal government is. Yes, they are constrained to the protection of individual rights, but what prohibits a state from passing a law against possession of lithium deuteride or uranium (components of the Teller-Ulam weapon)? Nothing.
The right to bear "arms" is a right to bear weapons that can be held by your human arms, not weapons of mass death. "Arms" are projectile, cutting or blunt trauma weapons, wielded by an individual human.
Arms do not include various weaponized diseases or radioactive concoctions, nor do they include your posited "giant tub of lithium deuteride" (to quote Robert A. Heinlein).
This imagined continuum of arms from knife to Teller-Ulam nuke is a fabrication.
Not true. Cannons are legal. And I dang sure can't budge one of my uncle's cannons without a crew. And he lives in California.
/johnny
So ... do you think it's acceptable for a State to prohibit the ownership of all guns including a .22 pistol?
"Arms" are projectile, cutting or blunt trauma weapons, wielded by an individual human.
That interpretation is inconsistent with revolution-era America, where crew served weapons were privately owned, and would be a surprise to the negotiators of the Strategic ARMS Limitation Treaty ...
Newt was advocating going to the UN with this. Once you do that, you give up power to the UN to grant gun rights. Say you have a compliant UN and they said “yes, gun rights for the whole world in every country”. Sounds terrific, doesn’t it?
That very same UN would then be able to revoke gun rights anytime after that for the whole world if they wanted too.
I think that would be very bad for the US.
Compare it to how states have given up so much autonomy to the Federal government. Once you take the tease because it sounded so good at the time, you lose power.
Newt tries to go overly big here, That is one of my problems with Newt. He is a one worlder. That is never going to happen without tyranny.
I want my President to guarantee me that the rights protected by the Constitution of the United states will not be subject to, or infringed upon by anyone, anywhere.
I would argue that Self Defense is a human right, and that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is the best way to achieve it, but same difference.
Keyword here. Natural right granted by God ansd protected by the Constitution. Our Constitution.
Our Constitution does not protect the Natural rights of people in other countries.
The UN can go "F" itself. IMO, we should withdraw from membership in it and evict it from New York.
The UN is irrelevant in any case ... The RKBA exists independently of the Constitution. The Second Amendment recognizes the existence of that right and constrains the government from infringing on it.
Arguably, crew served weapons don’t qualify as “bearing arms.” So, anything below that level should be okay.
Folks might need a license for crew-served weapons and up.
People do. The Constitution just lists the limits of the grant of power to the federal government.
Any freedom loving person will protect the God-given rights of any person. Including the unborn.
/johnny
They don't currently. And I would fight any law that might require permission from the government to have a cannon.
/johnny
Oh really? They have been infringing upon it for years. Give Barry 4 more and we may lose those rights altogether.
He is inching to a world government. And it ain’t friendly to our Constitition and universal gun rights.
He is working toward Agenda 21 and world courts. Just give the SOB some more Supreme Court picks.
Gawd, it is awful. We are having a hard time in a civil way hanging on to what we are supposed to have. I certainly am not worrying about other countries at the moment. Unless they want to kill us. Then I notice. LOL
Last time I checked you needed Class 3 FFL for a .50 cal or larger (like a 20mm anti-tank rifle). Might be waived for muzzle loading cannon.
You have just revealed the dirty little secret ... the fatal flaw in the Constitution.
It has no enforcement clause.
You nailed it.
But you see, that is what I am worried about.
Freedom loving people have failed the unborn. I haven’t seen a GOP administration do crap to overturn Roe. They always use the old “it is up to the States” cop out and that is the end of it. I don’t see anyone stopping Obama because he does as he pleases and gets away with it.
As you can see, I am very frustrated.
So called 'destructive' devices are currently regulated unConstitutionally, but things like cannons, Gatling guns, and hotchkiss guns were legal, last I heard.
/johnny
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.