"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."
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.
During and after the American revolution, there were individual Americans who were able to salvage cannon from downed British and American warships.
These cannon were WMD's in the 1770's.
No one seized them. They were allowed to keep them.
Tavor TAR-21
M1927 Thompson
Calico M9 with 100 rd mag cutaway.
M3A1 Grease Gun
Ingram MAC-10
MP-40
HK MP-5S3DK
Sten MK V
PPSch-41
Steyr AUG A1
British L1A1 SLR - license built FN FAL with SUIT optical sight
Valmet M76F
MP-44 aka. Sturmgewehr-44, STG-44
HK G3A3
British L85A2
Beretta AR-70/223
AK-47 1955 Issue with machined receiver.
M-14
M-4 Carbine
MG-34
MG-42
Degtyarev DPM
Kalashnikov PKS
Browning BAR M1918A2
M-60
FN M249 SAW
Browning M2 .50 cal
Browning M1917A1
Browning M1919A4
M134 minigun
Damn, this guy reminds me of Orrin "Boobie" Hatch!
One minute he is a nut, supporting "reparations", then he makes it clear the he (almost) fully supports the second amendment?
Machine guns are already legal in something like thirty-seven states, so long as buyers go through all the unconstitutional paperwork.
Medved made fun of him for doing this. I do not know why?
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.
The constitution doesn't give you rights, it keeps the government from infringing on inalienable rights. A little nitpicky perhaps, but the reason Democrats don't give a rat's ass about it is because they don't understand it.
