John Edwards Said, The Privilege Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms

[Rev, Ron]

".The Privilege Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms, Shall Not Be Infringed": You may recall that in concluding a YouTube interview last May, the former Senator engaged in a segment called "right or privilege." During this segment, the interviewer peppered Edwards with a series of questions asking if he considered each a right or a privilege. In response to the proposition of "owning a handgun," and following a pregnant pause, came the former Senator's one word answer: "privilege." Also surprising is what Edwards feels constitutes a "right." To see the interview, visit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQFhdFfl6rM

So NH, What do you think it is ?

[Little Owl]

That pesky constitution uses pretty plain English.  Its a right.

[PattyLee loves dogs]

Reason magazine has a quote from Edwards where he asks a reporter whether Cuba's health system is run by the government or not... he's not exactly the sharpest tool on the rack.

[Porcupine_in_MA]

Reason magazine has a quote from Edwards where he asks a reporter whether Cuba's health system is run by the government or not... he's not exactly the sharpest tool on the rack.

But he is a tool nonetheless...   

[erisian]

That pesky constitution uses pretty plain English.  Its a right.

I checked out the ACLU website, they have a page devoted to their position on the 2nd Amendment. I was surprised by the basis of their policy, which is a Supreme Court decision:

"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms."

So apparently the Supreme Court thinks that it's not an individual right. We're screwed. How they equated "the people" with "the state" is beyond me. If the framers wanted it to say "the state", it would say "the state".

[grasshopper]

    Cool,   as Rodney Dangerfield said:  Come on, while we're young allready!
   There are 45 guns in my posession in a safe.  My Grandfather had 4, my uncle has 50, my brother is a cop, he has 2.  My friends all have guns.  For 230 some odd years, all of the "several states" have had citizens making their own firearms, which is legal..  We have hundreds of years of ownership of these tools.   How in Gods name can there assholes say there are privelages involved in forearm ownership.  It is LAW that we ALL own them.  The "Malitia act" was nerver recended!  Who are these people/commies???????

[KBCraig]

That pesky constitution uses pretty plain English.  Its a right.

I checked out the ACLU website, they have a page devoted to their position on the 2nd Amendment. I was surprised by the basis of their policy, which is a Supreme Court decision:

"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms."

So apparently the Supreme Court thinks that it's not an individual right. We're screwed. How they equated "the people" with "the state" is beyond me. If the framers wanted it to say "the state", it would say "the state".

SCOTUS ruled no such thing. The ACLU woefully mis-states Miller. For starters, Miller was a ruling, not a final decision: they remanded it for further fact finding by the trial court. That never happened, for the same reason the defense didn't show up for the SCOTUS argument: one defendant was dead, and the other was a fugitive.

What SCOTUS said in Miller was that they had been presented no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun was a valid militia weapon. Of course they hadn't -- the defense didn't show up! By their ruling, SCOTUS practically begged for someone to show how a sawed-off shotgun had a valid military use. That would be easy enough, since they'd been used extensively just 20 years earlier in WWI.

The Court dropped enough hints to make it clear: if the weapon in question had military (thus militia) value, it would be protected by the 2nd. Indeed, it is sporting arms that don't enjoy automatic protection, although they should be covered just the same as pornography is covered under the 1st Amendment, which is meant to protect political speech.

If Miller had reached a final conclusion with the proper evidence, the National Firearms Act of 1934 would have been thrown out, and all subsequent federal gun laws would be void. Machineguns could be sold mail-order.

Ahh, we can dream... 

[grasshopper]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5854686068870249151&q=oklahoma+full+auto

  See other post!!!   

[grasshopper]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8063461984055391518

  nope, collective rite   

[Riddler]

That pesky constitution uses pretty plain English.  Its a right.

I checked out the ACLU website, they have a page devoted to their position on the 2nd Amendment. I was surprised by the basis of their policy, which is a Supreme Court decision:

"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms."

So apparently the Supreme Court thinks that it's not an individual right. We're screwed. How they equated "the people" with "the state" is beyond me. If the framers wanted it to say "the state", it would say "the state".

SCOTUS ruled no such thing. The ACLU woefully mis-states Miller. For starters, Miller was a ruling, not a final decision: they remanded it for further fact finding by the trial court. That never happened, for the same reason the defense didn't show up for the SCOTUS argument: one defendant was dead, and the other was a fugitive.

What SCOTUS said in Miller was that they had been presented no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun was a valid militia weapon. Of course they hadn't -- the defense didn't show up! By their ruling, SCOTUS practically begged for someone to show how a sawed-off shotgun had a valid military use. That would be easy enough, since they'd been used extensively just 20 years earlier in WWI.

The Court dropped enough hints to make it clear: if the weapon in question had military (thus militia) value, it would be protected by the 2nd. Indeed, it is sporting arms that don't enjoy automatic protection, although they should be covered just the same as pornography is covered under the 1st Amendment, which is meant to protect political speech.

If Miller had reached a final conclusion with the proper evidence, the National Firearms Act of 1934 would have been thrown out, and all subsequent federal gun laws would be void. Machineguns could be sold mail-order.

Ahh, we can dream... 

You used to be able to order Thompson sub-machine guns through the mail, back in the glory days...I think even Sears had them in their catalog...for something like $125.00....the ad showed a rancher standing on his porch unloading one at rustlers on horseback...those were the days, eh?

http://www.nfatoys.com/tsmg/web/coltguns.htm

[J’raxis 270145]

That pesky constitution uses pretty plain English.  Its a right.

lol, no doubt!

I wonder if Edwards thinks it's a privilege for me to decide whether I live or die...  fuckin' mandatory health visits... it's my body, dickhead, not yours.  I swear if he's elected I'm leaving the country.

Or, stay in New Hampshire and help the state as a whole leave the country.

[brandon dean]

You used to be able to order Thompson sub-machine guns through the mail, back in the glory days...I think even Sears had them in their catalog...for something like $125.00....the ad showed a rancher standing on his porch unloading one at rustlers on horseback...those were the days, eh?

yeah, glory days is right... I live in los angeles, and try driving down the street with a rifle rack filled with rifles on your way to hunt around here!  when I was a kid my dad did that all the time.  now he'd probably get suspected of being a terrorist...
it's easy to see how edwards would come to the conclusion owning and bearing arms is a privilege instead of a right.  being a democrat, and believing in democracy, he believes in socialist mob rule, and should be comfortable with the mob deciding what "rights" can be "granted" to us socialist slaves...

[ancapagency]

John Edwards is also in favor of Mandatory National Service--he apparently doesn't realize that Candidates from North Carolina aren't supposed to run on the Pro-Slavery Platform in the 21st Century.  He managed to get Mandatory Community Service for High School Graduation in his home county before he ran for Senate, and one of the first bills he voted against when he was elected to the Senate was a bill which was backed by the Department of Defense which would have disbanded the Selective Service System.  He also was touting his stance in favor of the Draft on his web page back in the 2004 election, until Aaron Russo made a big deal about that on his page, after which he quietly removed it.

Keep in mind that the draft bills are being kept off the floor, but "active" in committee until such time as the politicians think they can get away with passing them--and that this is not the draft of the 1960s.  The New Draft is UNIVERSAL National Service for all--male and female--from age 18 to 26 (although they do have back-burner plans to run the upper age out to 32).  And there are no deferments anymore--no conscientious objector status either.  And the plan is that the military gets first pick, and anyone the military doesn't want goes into AmeriCorps.  And the plan is to begin deploying AmeriCorps outside the US--specifically to rebuild in combat zones.  So essentially, your fate if you are drafted is to end up in a combat zone, either with a rifle or without one, and you have no say over which way you go there.

But don't make the mistake of thinking it's just John Edwards who is behind this--most of the candidates in both parties are for it--but the Dems seem especially in favor of it--the bills have all been introduced by Democrats.

Just an FYI.

[brandon dean]

"John Edwards is also in favor of Mandatory National Service--he apparently doesn't realize that Candidates from North Carolina aren't supposed to run on the Pro-Slavery Platform in the 21st Century."

yeah, he's pretty much nothing but a commie.  he's like the left equivalent of strom thurmond.  democrats love to cloak their slavery in taxes and social programs, as opposed to republicans, who mask their slavery in morals and religious dogma.  edwards is poison in a pretty pill so to speak, but I've come to believe that's the whole point of the democratic party...

[Dreepa]

Only if it leaves before I am required to go to my mandatory government yearly health check up Edwards wants to implement.  Otherwise, I flee.  My health is my business alone.

You could just not go to the doctor's.
I have a feeling that if a commie is elected Prez in 08 then in 2010 or 2011 NH would have a '' we are doing National heathcare bill" because it is unConstitutional.