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

[CNHT]

".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 ?

I don't think anyone here much cares, since I doubt they would be voting for this commie anyhoo.

[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.

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.

I'm sure they'll be tracking and enforcing such a program by people's SS numbers, or REAL ID–enabled driver's licenses, or something similar, meaning if you're already living under the radar by not using such things, you probably even won't be noticed.

[grasshopper]

  Nope, the thugs have to fly or drive in the country of New Hampshire.  The Govenor will mobilise the malitia to protect our rites and to re take Washington if need be.

[mvpel]

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.

The Chicago Platform:

[error]

That's some brilliant propaganda. So, for that matter, was the web site explaining it.

[Seamas]

That's a good statement of the status quo and the ACLU's specious and tendentious interpretation of the Second Amendment.   The joke is: "How does the ACLU count to ten?  1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10."  I will never support them until they change their position.

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... 

[J’raxis 270145]

That's a good statement of the status quo and the ACLU's specious and tendentious interpretation of the Second Amendment.   The joke is: "How does the ACLU count to ten?  1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10."  I will never support them until they change their position.

The ACLU's interpretation of the second amendment is stupid, but their actual position is to be neutral—meaning they don't support it, but they don't work against it, either.

[Porcupine_in_MA]

  My health is my business alone.

No, no, noooo..your health is everyones business because if you don't eat what "we" think is the best for you, you might get unhealthy and everyone else would have to pay for it!

[Romak]

"Only" 45 grasshopper???? Come on man get to work. Think my sister alone has more than that Now here is the million dollar question, do you have the ammo to go with those weapons??? Youd be surprised as to how many dolts have 100 or so guns and less than a thousand rounds of ammo in total.

[grasshopper]

   I have copies of the same guns and less than 2000 for all of em.  I have been shooting it, this weekend, I'll be down an other 400 or so.  Mosin Negants are fun fun fun!  The Romak shoots the same ammo also, but you probrably know that

[Romak]

Jesus brother get on board, between my buddies and I we have over 5 million rounds of ammo and I aint chittin you. You should start re-loading, saves a ton of money and if you're real good you gain some serious accuracy....To be completely honest the only thing I like about the Romak is the way it smells after fired..call me weird...hands down in order VEPR, Grendel, Dragunov.........you get some extra money may I seriously recommend the Grendel, expensive rifle but worth every cent. Alexander Arms makes it, check it out if you havent already.

[grasshopper]

   Man, you are evil Romak   Now I wanna go to the car and smell all of them there empty ruptured steel cases of all shot out x54 corrosive ww2 surplus.   I can smell it now!  Ahhh, the smell of freedom.   The distinctive smell of an ak style weapon when you take off the dust cover.....  mmmmmmm

[Romak]

Nothing wrong with having an addiction to the smell/sound/feeling of freedom my man. So smell away.....just dont let anyone catch ya doin it

[mulp]

If so, where have you advocated for those who might want to carry a concealed handgun into a hall where Bush, or some other conservative or Republican is speaking in a public forum, even those who are Muslims of Arabic origin who have spoken and written calling for Iraqis or Afghanis or Muslims to rise up against Western oppression.

If liberty is paid for with blood, then surely the liberty promised in the US Constitution mandates that the Secret Service must suppress its suspicions when it comes to protecting the president, and must allow such people the liberty to be present with a concealed weapon when the president they are protecting speaks, acting only when a crime is being committed.  If having a gun is a right, then there can be no crime until the gun is used to commit a crime.

So, when has the NRA filed suit against the Secret Service for searching actively or secretly the people attending an appearance by President Bush or VP Cheney as a violation of the the Constitutional right of people to have their guns without restriction?

Maybe the NRA and others believe that "they" have rights, but not "them"?

Somehow, I don't believe that President Bush or VP Cheney are willing to spill their blood to preserve liberty, even as they praise others they have sent to shed their blood in the name of liberty.

[Romak]

I honestly cant think of any President in my lifetime who would spill their own blood protecting our freedoms.....then again Im only 32. Would be nice to have a president who you could look at and know for a fact that he would grab a rifle and fight in the trenches with all of us if need be. Something tells me Ron Paul would do that. And for the record when Ron Paul was speaking in Manchester at Veterans Park there was a bunch of us who were carrying there. With a crowd like he had(800 people or so) Id say there were quite a few more excercising their freedoms that day.