Posted on 08/25/2004 2:09:41 PM PDT by yonif
I will not plead their forgiveness, because they do not deserve it. However, I will plead mercy.
For the life and breath of me, I have not been able to understand the vitriol sprayed on Keyes this last month. I think he is misguided on reparatiosn, but I cannot abide discarding him like used bathroom tissue. A man so strong on abortion, a man for whom I voted twice in Republican presidential primaries, well, he is not someone I will abandon easily.
Not really. No one here is denigrating Keyes. Some of you Keyes supporters may be being treated rudely, but you reap what you sow.
I doubt it. Keyes believes in the principle of self-government.
that would be refreshing if that is still his position. thanks for posting it.
robert.
Post #275 tells me differently, at least in this instance... If you are correct, then I guess I would be able to license myself and give myself permission to own various types of weapons, right?
Agreed - it would be very refreshing...
Every state has, has always had, and has always used the power to restrict advanced weapons.
Saying otherwise does not make it so, will not make history disappear.
Unless living constitutionalism reigns.
You know you want Keyes confirming the judges that will incorporate the Second.
Well, everything I've ever read or heard about Keyes position on the 2nd amendment convinces me that he backs it 100%. And he's never been shy about telling people the founders intent. It's not about hunting rabbits or even protecting ourselves from burglers, although that is our God given right. The reason for the 2nd amendment is so that we citizens can keep and bear arms to defend ourselves from a runaway tyranical government.
Alan Keyes is absolutely correct. 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 Second Amendment civics course I am proposing must include the holding and firing of basic weapons.
This sounds a bit like a "one size fits all" proposal. I wonder if he would have the Federal Government require this of all schools. I wonder if he would have any government at any level require it of private schools.
Now, that I agree with, and have no problems with it. However, again, as shown by an apparent direct quote, Keyes wants us all to be trained and licensed by that same government in order to exercise the 2nd amendment...
So, one day the government becomes a runaway tyrannical government, so we get fed up and go to hem asking to be trained and licensed to defend ourselves from the... oops...
The Peoria paper quote you posted, regarding treating it like driver training/licensing, is from today, right?
Correction - should say treating it "like owning an automobile".
It's from today. I supportd Keyes before the general election in 2000, and I loved his second amendment positions... That was 2000, though.
His position today, August 25, 2004 is different.
I already have the right to arm myself with a machine gun if I wish. As long as I have the right paper work, am law-abiding, and pay the 200 bucks, that is...
I can also own a cannon if I want, no government permission necessary.
Keyes would change that, and not for the better I'm afraid, if his direct quote of today is any indication...
Good grief, you'll already be trained. Train the kids youself. How about the CMP, even Clinton didn't try to finish them off, though they were privatized. Civilian training through the CMP has been around for nearly a hundred years, and the NRA's been doing it longer.
Get over the "training" fetish. Two guys are running, Keyes vs Obama. On 2nd amendment issues the choice is crystal clear. If Keyes gets your goat on other issues, or as a candidate (I admit he's not ideal) save it for non 2nd amendment threads.
Yes, that's today's internet edition.
In fairness to Keyes, though, his position on the Second Amendment has apparently changed somewhat over time. I don't know that he had ever previously advocated the licensing of weapons. This seems to be a new position.
And, you know, he's in the middle of a campaign. He may not have yet had a chance to really think through some of these newer ideas.
I don't normally respond to comments that start with the word "so" they are always negative, always accusatory and always read something in my post that I didn't say. Reread my comments, especially this part. Then tell me where it says that I agree with ALL that he says or how he says it.
In all my adult voting life I have never seen a politician/candidate who more closely reflects my views than Alan Keyes. That's not to say that I agree with everything he says or the way he says it. If I wanted a candidate that I agreed with 100% I would have to run myself. I won't pick apart everything the man says.
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.