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."
"Chad, you have got to patch a flat tire before you put air into it."
Point well taken.
But I would submit that the very salient points you make were only one very important portion of what the founders considered to be a 'well-regulated' militia.
They did expect that the militia would obtain proper basic firearms training within the sphere of their local leadership.
And there can be no doubt at all that they most certainly didn't mean 'regulated' in the 21st century meaining of that word.
Every state has restricted ownership of advanced weapons since the Constitution was written, and before.
214 mrsmith
______________________________________
Doesn't make it right. Of course, they also were not states really until they actually adopted the constitution as the law of the land... THEN they got statehood.
218 -Chad-
______________________________________
mrsmith wrote: Then amend the Constitution or move to a nation that requires people be allowed to own any and every weapon they may want... machine guns, bazookas, jet fighters, nukes, chemical bombs.
______________________________________
Yes, I support the Second Amendment. And I make no bones about its purpose or to whom it applies. It was not put in place so Bill and Hillary Clinton could go duck hunting with a shotgun or so Barbara Steisand could carry a derringer in her purse to stave off overzealous fans. It's there because the founders wanted to ensure that we the people (ie, individuals) should remain armed to defend ourselves from a government gone bad.
As far as I'm concerned, we should be allowed to park fully operational Sherman tanks in our garages and commute via fighter planes (if we wish). Now, personal nukes capable of taking out large cities.... hmmmm.... I don't know if I want to trust some of the crazier antiwar libs with those.
1,219 posted on 04/17/2003 5:04 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
______________________________________
Well said JR.
I am curious though on how you see the 'States right', - claimed by Calif, - to prohibit assault weapons.
As Chad mentioned above, territories of the US, prior to statehood, did not have a right to infringe upon the 2nd.
Mrsmith claims they did, as do many Keyes supporters. How say you?
In the beginning the Voltaire quote was a driving force on FR. But since the 2000 election the site has been overrun with a number of poster who believe you have the right to express any opinion as long as it agrees with theirs. Trust me I have been flamed regularly over the last 4 years for having the audacity to question any of a number of positions taken by the Bush administration that I find less than conservative.
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...
Okay, now you are just confusing me.
I assume you view the necessity of getting the proper paper-work as the direct equivalent of licensing (because it pretty much is - no paperwork no gun) so it seems to me that AT WORST you would be unhappy with Keyes for making no productive change towards more 2ndA rights.
But you keep saying that as you understand it you would have LESS rights. Frankly, I can't see how you arrive at that conclusion except by splitting semantical hairs over the word "license."
Medved made fun of him for doing this. I do not know why?
Is he now saying that he favors licensing WEPONS?
It appeared to me he was licensing USERS.
In the latter case, it keeps Big Brother from knowing who IS armed...merely who is legally allowed to be. The holding of a wepons license would not be - in itself - evidence that one actually had a wepon.
Medved is squishy. That's the answer.
Answer the question. If I'm to decide whether or not I agree with you I'd like to know how YOU, my fellow Constitutionalist, interpret that phrase.
It's an honest question.
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."
Like you said, who cares if he is from out of state, what he says hits the ball out of the park === Go Keyes!!!
Yes, but a civil one.
You have never established a Constitutional basis for that opinion.
The Second protects that power from the feds.
The 2nd is part of our supreme Law of the Land that State officals are bound by oath to obey.
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).
More unfounded, unestablished speculation.
If that is done faithfully to the Constitution it will be like Keyes envisions here. Advanced weapons will be more restricted, but available.
Keyes envisions restrictive regulations? How does he justify such regulations, - using the simple words of the 2nd?
Please explain Mrsmith.
I honestly believe that Alan Keyes, more so than any other politician of which I am aware, is dedicated to restoring this country to its original basis.
Which, unfortunately, makes him virtually unelectable
In that case I suggest we work harder for Keyes to make him electable. Keep hope alive my brother.
I believe that in those days "basic firearms training" would have been hard to avoid, as youth literally grew up with firearms in hand.
Towns were mostly pretty small, most of the time every member of the local militia would have been neighbors and hunting partners.
This aspect was still common in W.W.I, particularly in England, which sadly led to the demise of the entire generation of young men from many rural towns.
Thoughts of Sheffield spring to mind.
I am sure the standards of the time varied widely, there would have been little central government oversight to ensure a single uniform expression of "Well Regulated".
I have seen scholarly articles asserting that in early America state and local government feared that the cost of making the militia too "regulated" would place an impossible burden on their treasury, as they would then be obliged to provide the militia with the required equipment!
Understand, I respect your position and the idea that you want to have integrity about it. I just disagree. For my money, the man who best represents me in office is the man who thinks like I think. I've got neighbors who've lived in my district all their life that I wouldn't trust with ANY office of public trust. Being from my hometown gets them ZERO credit with me.
I would completely understand if the political opposition had a similar position.
That wasn't Keyes point concerning Israel. He's making the point that when there's trouble afoot, a better armed society on the streets is desirable. If an Israeli can get a gun because of carrying cash around or because he lives in a settlement, then there must be IMO oodles of reasons they can do so. Upshot is they do have the right to bear , even if it's defacto, and Keyes is right on.
I can't understand why 'freepers' are nit picking Keyes. Or are they really FINO's.
It says our rights "shall not be infringed." Appears to me that the second amendment protects our right to keep and bear arms from being infringed upon by any government.
What part of "right of the people" "to keep and bear arms" (machine guns are arms, look it up) "shall not be infringed" do you not understand...Oh you'r a BATFE agent, never mind I can't hold you responsible for understanding something you can't read.
No, it's not semantics - licensing, in the sense he was alluding to with "like cars" means it's not a right, but a privilege - meaning we would have it at the whim of the government - THAT is what concerns me most...
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.