Posted on 08/25/2004 2:09:41 PM PDT by yonif
Declaring "the front line of the war against terror once again involves the citizens," Republican Alan Keyes said Tuesday he believes the U.S. Constitution grants properly trained private individuals the right to own and carry machine guns.
"You're not talking about giving citizens access to atom bombs and other things," the former presidential candidate said. "That's ridiculous."
But the GOP nominee for U.S. Senate argued the founding fathers intended the Second Amendment to allow people to carry the types of weapons "customarily carried in those days by ordinary infantry soldiers."
"And, yes, does that mean that in this day and age people would have the right to have access to the kind of the weapons our ordinary infantry people have access to? With proper training and so forth to make sure that they could handle them successfully, that's exactly what was meant."
Keyes made the remarks at a news conference he called to attack the "ideological extremism" of his Democratic opponent, state Sen. Barack Obama.
The Republican lit into Obama for voting against a bill in Springfield earlier this year that would have allowed people who use handguns to fend off home invaders or attackers to argue self-defense as a possible legal defense against prosecution for violating any local anti-firearm possession ordinances.
The measure passed the Legislature with bi-partisan support, but Gov. Blagojevich vetoed it last week.
Keyes called Obama's vote against the measure an "appalling . . . lack of common sense."
"This seems to be a man who is absolutely determined to make the world safe for criminals, while making sure that law-abiding citizens have no opportunity to defend themselves against the criminals," Keyes said.
Keyes said he supports a system in which guns would be treated similarly to automobiles, with people being required to undergo different levels of training before they would be allowed to own and carry various sorts of weapons.
"I always remind -- even people who support the Second Amendment -- that it has two parts: the right to keep and bear" arms, Keyes said. " 'Bear' means to carry, to carry around. . . . I think it has been proven empirically that . . . allowing law-abiding citizens this access to conceal-carry actually reduces crime."
Keyes said he owns two firearms himself: a 9mm Glock semi-automatic pistol and a .38-caliber "six-shooter." But he said he does not keep them at his new home in Calumet City.
Keyes only indirectly answered a reporter's question about whether he would "be comfortable if the entire society was walking around with Uzis, as long as they were properly trained."
"Have you ever been to Israel?" Keyes asked the reporter. "Because if you've ever been to Israel, you wouldn't ask that question. And in the midst of terrifying dangers, you walk around the streets of Israel and you see every other person carrying arms and Uzis and so forth and so on, and believe me, you do not feel less safe on that account."
Machine guns, or fully automatic weapons, are firearms that fire multiple shots with a single pull of the trigger.
Thomas Ahern, a spokesman for the Chicago division of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, said private individuals can only own such weapons if they apply with the bureau and clear a series of hurdles, including a background check, fingerprinting and the OK of local law enforcement officials. Additional paperwork is required any time the weapon is to be transported.
"It is heavily regulated," Ahern said.
A spokesman for Obama defended the Democrat's record on guns.
"Certainly he believes in the Second Amendment, but he also believes in common-sense gun safety laws, such as the federal ban on military-style assault weapons." said spokesman Robert Gibbs. "If Alan Keyes truly was concerned about public safety, that would be his position, as well."
"You're not talking about giving citizens access to atom bombs and other things," the former presidential candidate said. "That's ridiculous."
Well, if Keyes wants to put the reparations issue behind him, this machine gun proposal could help.
However, if we have to go running to that same government in order to get permission to keep and bear arms, then it becomes immpossible to defend ourselves against it's abuses. They can just deny the right, and then where are we? Screwed, that's where.
I REALLY REALLY REALLY hope Keyes didn't say we should license them like cars, and require training and permission...
I think Keyes should offer all blacks, who are demanding reparations...machine guns instead.
"I think instead of being afraid of defending ourselves, we would do well to follow a course of action that re-educated our people in the means of their self-defense," the staunch conservative Republican said at a Chicago news conference. "And it would, by the way, provide an armed citizenry that would make terrorists think twice and three times before they dared to threaten our people."
...
"Sen. Obama was one of those who voted 'no' on this legislation and once again demonstrated for all the world exactly what he is - a liberal, a very liberal Democrat," said Petka, who vowed to seek an override of Blagoejvich's veto in the fall legislative session.
...
"The police don't exist to protect each and every citizen in each and every circumstance," he said. "They are, as the name implies, enforcers of the law, guardians of the law. Sad to say, their main role in life is to show up after the crime has been committed and make sure the malefactor is identified and apprehended."
...
"I think it has been proven empirically that 'concealed-carry' laws - allowing law-abiding citizens this access to conceal-carry - actually reduces crime," Keyes said. "It makes the world more dangerous for crooks."
...
"I think it would be the best thing for this country if indeed we approach this the same way as we approach owning an automobile and took the steps that were necessary," he said. "You have courses that you can take and other things to reach minimal thresholds so that you can have access to this, that. As you wish to move to a higher threshold, you would take other courses until you could responsibly enter into them."
States have always been able to restrict ownership of various firearms.
Every state you ever lived in.
The Second protects that power from the feds.
Incorporating the 2nd under the 14th will require that a minimum federal standard of 2nd amendment right be sestablished and enforced upon the states (they will be able to exceed that minimum- but not fall below it).
If that is done faithfully to the Constitution it will be like Keyes envisions here. Advanced weapons will be more restricted, but available.
Here, I'll add my own pro-Keyes conclusions: I think Keyes is talking about arming and training a well trained, ie, a well regulated militia, as a response to the terrorist threat. Looks like an entirely new program and it has no bearing at all on the personal right to keep and bear arms that he supports 100% in the above quote:
"I always remind -- even people who support the Second Amendment -- that it has two parts: the right to keep and bear" arms, Keyes said. " 'Bear' means to carry, to carry around. . . . I think it has been proven empirically that . . . allowing law-abiding citizens this access to conceal-carry actually reduces crime."
Well, I think his statement about the atom bombs hints that if the machine gun proposal is deemed inadequate for some reason, he's left himself room to ratchet it up to include more powerful weapons.
Here is the section in the constitution of my birth state:
[Art.] 2-a. [The Bearing of Arms.]. All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.
Many states have one just like it, or similar.
Nice try, though.
There are no rights that are completely unfettered, the "fire in the theatre" thing. I'll rely on prior statements, not a one liner in an article in the Sun Times.
You want licensing, Illinois is the model, you can't buy ammunition without a license, much of the population (Chicago and other towns) can't own handguns, thanks to the Democratic Party under the Daleys, dad and son, with the cooperation of the Illinois Republican Party.
The idea of supporting Obama over Keyes on gun rights (what the thread is about) is laughable.
When folks post like leftist Democrats while claiming to be conservative, they should be.
Please name for me the state in which I can carry a weapon in a National Park or Monument.
Maybe they "can't", but they do.
I would support Keyes overe Obama any day of the week on probably every issue.
That doesn't mean I won't criticize Keyes when he comes up with stupid ideas that may infringe on my rights...
Attacking Keyes with leftist propaganda will definitely get one banned or suspended if I come across it.
And that is the kind of crap we have to fight against. What Keyes appears to be offering however, doesn't do that. It just gives government MORE power over our rights...
I don't see it happening, but there's a significant body of thought that feel the 2nd amendment applies to all personal weapons used in combat and may extend to some crew manned weapons. There is a history of privately owned cannons in this nation. In fact if you want one, you can buy one, no license required.
Good to know.
Whoa, not so fast there, sistah!
I'm still analyzing the beast (invoke blind_man+elephant_metaphor), but I've got a sneaking suspicion that if the likes of you or me were to say anything disparaging about Bush, we'd get the same STFU-points we catch if we say anything less than 100% solicitous about Keyes.
From what I gather, there are at least two classes of members, whom I shall for convenience term "golden" and "non-golden". The one universal attribute I've been able to determine that distinguishes one group from the other is "blind support of Keyes" -- which, of course, is observed in the "golden" members, and absent in the rest.
Now, the "golden" members seem to be "perfectly in-bounds" making "disparaging comments" about Bush, and/or anyone else they feel like attacking.
And, curiously enough, the "non-golden" members seem to be prohibited from saying anything even less than complimentary about anyone at all, other than Barak Obama or other Democrats.
So, "Golden" membership has its priviliges, in that a "golden" member can freely attack Bush, other (non-"Golden" members, etc. But, non-golden members are basically walking on eggshells, and even so, may still be picked off at random, possibly as a means of keeping the rest fearful (and thus obedient).
In a way, somewhat reminiscent of a bedouin tribal "community", in which the "elders" have total rights -- including the right to go lopping off heads at random -- and the rest of the tribe has the right to keep quiet, OBEY, and, of course, provide tons of clear, open support for the system.
Do I think this is a good system?
Hell yes! What else could I think? After all, I am rather attached to my head!
/srcsm (that's a seekrit kodewerd)
What if we criticize Keyes from the Right?
But under Keye's plan, we'd have to have government permission and licensing.
So, we are, in a sense, LOSING rights under his idea.
My apologies.
But surely you don't take the suggestion that there is parity between Keyes and Obama on guns seriously?
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.