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."
He'd get my vote. Course, I'm not in Illinois.
So, you think i'm wrong, without any proof, evidence, or anything else to back up your claims.
Now you are just being dishonest and disingenuous.
How about we wait and see if Keyes clarifies these remarks that could have been taken out of context before we start spouting off about who is right and who is wrong, or is that too difficult for you?
I'm no living constitution kind of person - I'm a "constitution as the founders intended" person.
Don't like it? Too bad.
I'm sabotaging no one. Keyes is perfectly capable of doing it to himself.
Like I said, though, if Keyes clarifies his remarks and what the reporter said is incorrect then I will apologize for my criticisms of Keyes on this issue.
Fair enough?
What does that mean?
It means that he has no intelligent rebuttal for what I had to say...
Pretty simple, really.
It means: "Time to look for a hidden camera in the bathroom!"
What on earth are you talking about?
No one has to do anything to "stop Keyes".
You make it sound as if victory is his to lose. Or rather, as if his victory is someone else's to lose "for" him.
Keyes himself knows he's not going to win.
This, like every other campaign he's run, is a "for show" campaign. A way to get some camera-time, some mike-time, some moments in the debate, so to speak.
Those people who characterized him as "our Sharpton" weren't making a joke. That is a clinical definition of his role in conservative politics.
Neither Keyes or Sharpton is going to win any election.
The big difference seems to be in the supporters.
Keyes supporters, it seems, really do believe that ne does run some risk of actually winning an election.
My advice?
If you are truly dedicated to the man's parade, then enjoy it for what it's worth, just as the Sharpton camp followers do with their party.
But don't give yourself ulcers over it, fretting about "someone" or "something" happening that's gonna make Keyes lose. You're looking down the wrong end of the kaleidoscope!
Hunting is allowed in several national parks. In Va we can carry in all state parks, though the Northern Virginians (yankees) try to end that just about every year.
LOL
If my post was somehow misconstrued as a personal attack on Amelia, it wasn't. It was simply my opinion on the contents of her post, for which she probably (and I'm guessing on this anyway) got banned.
If someone wants to challenge any of my posts by saying their contents are leftist Democrat-like, (s)he can go right ahead. Viewers can judge for themselves the veracity of the comments. It'd probably just amuse me.
Another paper, the Peoria Journal Star, quotes Keyes as follows:
"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."
All sorts of passions, then the day after the election, quiet.
Alan will be back on the lecture circuit, fat and happy, regaling his faithful on the "interests" that kept him from gaining office.
Well, ideally.
But frankly, I have a bit of a gnawing fear that one of the "true believers", devastated at the "tragic loss" that was "caused by those evildoers" (i.e., anyone who didn't go "yumyum, more pleaaaaase" when they were passing the KA pitcher) goes 'round the bend, and finds out where one of us "teetolalers" lives in R/L, and decides to ensure that he'll "make sure that SOB Don Joe never stops Alan Keyes from winning again!"
Stranger things have happened in this world of ours. Far stranger things have happened. And when I see the sheer venom aimed at the non-drinkers, man, it do make my blood run cold when I think of what would happen if they'd find me where I sleep...
"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."
ROFLOL!
You've shown on this thread that you find whatever you want in the Constitution- you don't care two cents what the Founders intended.
Justice Scalia: "The living Constitutional judge never has to put up with that. Whatever he thinks is good, is in the Constitution."... like the right to own machine guns, bazookas, nukes and chemical weapons without restriction.
Well, rather than you and I debating the obvious here, why don't you just wait until she's available to respond? ;-)
I just saw that, thanks.
The problem with that idea is simple - Driving a car is NOT a constitutional right, so being required to "get permission and licensed" is acceptable.
The right to keep and bear arms, on the other hand, IS a constitutional right, and should NOT be compared to driving a car.
I guess I was right. Alan Keyes DOES want us to go asking Uncle Sam if we can "pretty please own a gun"...
I wonder if he'll get the NRA or GOA endorsements now.
Dude, you missed your calling.
And you owe me a keyboard!
You are a lawyer, crazy freepers are afraid of dark caves where you guys hang from the ceilings. (I'm an ex-lawyer)
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.