Keyes: Constitution protects machine gun ownership [describes Israel as an example]

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | August 25, 2004 | SCOTT FORNEK

[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."

[tame]

I just did a quick read of this thread. I simply cannot comprehend the obtuse Keyes bashers. Here you have the only nationally known politician having the guts to say we have a right to machine guns, and the left leaning bashers are arguing he is not conservative enough on the right to bear arms, ROTFLMAO!

They are more concerned with machine-gun-Alan's supposed lack of fidelity to gun rights than they are with President Bush's anti-gun stands. The irony is too thick.

Then, Obama's cheerleaders have the nerve to suggest they get banned or suspended because they're winning the argument, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA. But that logic, the trolls are intellectual gods, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.

[El Gato]

What the good Rabbi doesn't mention is that Israel sends full auto machine guns or submachine guns home with it's reservists. While they don't "own" those guns, they control them and their ammunition. Not quite as open a system as the Swiss, but not all that far from it either, especially when compared to our own system. The number of reservists relative to the population in those two countries is also much much higer, since service is universal and reserve obligations are much longer than in the US.

[El Gato]

You now have done as much as most voters will, and you are left with the impression Keyes wants us to be able to buy an Uzi at Wal Mart.

I'd prefer an UZI or better yet a Thompson or something else in .45 acp, that sounds pretty good to me. It is after all what Madison and the other founders, including all those that voted for or voted to ratify the second amendment intended.

[henderson field]

Captian Kirk, you are exactly right. In a world full of corporate mush and political equivocators, here's a guy who steps up and has a point of view that he's standing up for. Very refreshing. As for Mr. Obama, he's a little Marxist weasel who couldn't be trusted to check the punctuation of our blessed Constitution. He should be deported. These are dangerous times and the police, as well-meaning as they may be, cannot protect everyone. Under these circumstances, we might consider making gun ownership mandatory.

[Luis Gonzalez]

The Second Amendment is pretty unique in the fact that it is the only Amendment with a preamble.

Why not just simply say:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Why did the Founders decide to qualify the people's right?

In essence, Laurence Tribe bases his pro gun control argument on the meaning of that preamble, saying that the people's right to keep and bear arms exists only as those rights apply to an actual State's militia; a "well regulated" State's militia.

Tribe's argument is that the Amendment applied to the State, and that it meant that the State was able to limit possession of arms to an actual State's militia, there to protect itself against the Federal government.

That's the Amendment read from the left.

I read it from the right, and from the right it says that the people's right to protect itself against anything that would destroy our Constitutional Republican form of government, is essential to the continued survival of our Constitutional Republic, and that as such, our right as individuals to bear and keep arms must not be infringed.

So, in a nutshell, the government is not constitutionally limited from requiring citizens to register their weapons, and I'm pretty sure they can constitutionally tax them. I don't even think that the State is limited from requiring people to show some sort of proficiency as a requirement of ownership, after all, the Second Amendment mandates the State to maintain a militia, and the individual has a responsibility to be proficient in the use of his weapon, so that he may bear arms in common defense when necessary. It stops when the government begins enacting laws restricting the ability of the people in general to keep arms.

So, what's left?

Only the definition of "arms" that individuals can "keep", and how does "bear" impact the definition of "keep", as it relates to "arms"?

But that's a subject for another day...I have to get some sleep.

[Jim Robinson]

You need to wake up.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"I read it from the right, and from the right it says that the people's right to protect itself against anything that would destroy our Constitutional Republican form of government, is essential to the continued survival of our Constitutional Republic, and that as such, our right as individuals to bear and keep arms must not be infringed."

So, you don't agree with that statement?

[tame]

I have to get some sleep

Jim: You need to wake up.

Good one :o) hee hee hee.

[Jim Robinson]

You posted a huge string of nonsense. The second amendment means exactly what it says.

[tame]

In other words, Jim is asking "What part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand?"

[tpaine]

Jim Robinson wrote:

Appears to me that the second amendment protects our right to keep and bear arms from being infringed upon by any government.

______________________________________

Thank you.

We can agree that States do not have the power to ignore the Constitution on basic individual rights.

Keyes often gives the impression, [mostly in the heat of his speeches], that he thinks otherwise.
This confuses some of his supporters into thinking he advocates State controls over some of our unenumerated rights.
Unfortunately, imo, he never gets around to clarifying those issues quite enough.
-- Maybe next year..

[Jim Robinson]

I don't think so. Paraphasing of couse, but I've heard Keyes say many times that our unalienable rights come from God and that no government can deprive us of same. I think it would go against his deeply held religious beliefs to say otherwise.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I gave a summary of Laurence Tribe's argumen--before the Supreme Court I believe--when he argued in favor of gun control, and said that it wasn't the way I read the amendment at all.

So, what you're telling me is that I am crazy for disagreeing with Laurence Tribe on this isue?

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Appears to me that the second amendment protects our right to keep and bear arms from being infringed upon by any government."

I just said the same thing, and you told me I was posting nonsense.

Was I a tad long-winded or something?

[Jim Robinson]

I don't know what point you were trying to make. Looked like gobbledygook to me.

[Joe Hadenuf]

You posted a huge string of nonsense

Nonsense as in double speak, double talk, and clap trap. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is not complicated.

Only those that oppose it, try and turn it into some complicated, mysterious, mumbo jumbo, legal interpetation.

[tame]

Some folks need to understand that L Tribe seems to be on crack, and we don't need to his leftist radicalism as a measuring stick for our common sense constitutional conservatism.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Well, this WillRain guy asked me what I thought of the Second, and specifically how I interpreted "well regulated".

I remembered that Laurence Tribe based his pro gun control argument on those very same two words. And that the definition of "well regulated" is the basis for the ACLU's Policy #47 on gun control:

"The setting in which the Second Amendment was proposed and adopted demonstrates that the right to bear arms is a collective one, existing only in the collective population of each State, for the purpose of maintaining an effective State militia."

So here we have this guy in FR, asking me to interpret "well regulated", as I am arguing that the government does not have the right to prohibit citizens from keeping and bearing arms by requiring citizens to complete any sort of State required, conducted, and licensed training.

I thought that maybe I was talking to Tribe.

[Jim Robinson]

From Alan Keyes on the Issues:

On the source of our rights

We have forgotten the principle that our rights come from God and must be exercised with respect for the existence and authority of God. . . .

You can't have it both ways. Either our rights come from God, as our Declaration of Independence says, or they come from human choice. If they come from human choice, then our whole way of life is meaningless, it has no foundation.

On the role of government

All human beings are created equal. They need no title or qualification beyond their own simple humanity in order to command respect for their intrinsic human dignity, their "unalienable rights."

The purpose of government is to secure these rights, and no government is just or legitimate if it systematically violates them.

http://www.keyes2004.com/issues2.php

[spunkets]

" Why did the Founders decide to qualify the people's right?"

First, it's the people's right. That's the same people refered to everywhere else in the Constitution and it's Bill of Rights. When the States are the subject, the word State(s) is used, as it is in the 10th Amend, or in the body of the Constitution itself. It's the people's right.

The clause preceding the directive, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", is neither a preamble, nor is it a qualification. It's a statement reflecting on and stating that the directive itself is necessary. The implied necessity is Freedom. Regulated means to make functional, effective and unencumbered. It does not mean regulated as some folks would have it. They insist it means infringed. That would contradict the main directive, which is that the people's right should not be infringed. Tribe's claim and Bork's also, amounts to the claim that the Amend. could be rewritten to read: "A well infringed militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The free State means the condition of the people, not the condition of any State. Else the directive would have been written as: the right of the States to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The founders were clear about standing armies, just as they were clear in their meaning of the second Amendment, that it was the people's unqualified right, not the States, and it was not to be infringed.

Here's the liberal version according to their claims: "A well infringed people, being necessary for the security of an almighty State, the right of the States to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.