NRA

[detbuch]

[QUOTE=spence;980906]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

The right to keep and bar arms does not in any manner depend on the 2nd Amendment for its existence. The reason why the citizen possesses the right to arms is because no power was ever granted to government to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen.[/SIZE]

This + This

Governments can only claim power to restrict "dangerous or unusual" arms.

= Contradiction.

-spence

The first quote by RR was a response to Jim in Ct re the Second Ammendment, and was meant to show that the ammendment was not really necessary because the right pre-existed the Constitution, and, since no power was granted in the Constitution which was written as a limitation on the central government to only those powers granted to it, the Federal Gvt. should have no interest in private ownership of arms. When RR repeated the statement in response to a post by me, he added the word "federal": "No power was ever granted to the federal government to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen . . ."

I believe that the second quote: "Governments can only claim power to restrict "dangerous or unusual arms" is referring mostly to state governments since the Federal Gvt is already presumed, via the Second Ammendment and the Constitution's silence, to have no interest in private ownership of arms. Note the plural use of government(s), not singular government. And note the use of "claim" to restrict, and the rest of the sentence left out of your quote: "But government does not get to begin its action presuming the arm is "dangerous and unusual" beause it doesn't think the citizens have any good reason to own it, or it isn't used in hunting (i.e. the present idiotic 'assault weapons' hoopla)."

Considering the entire context of RR's quotes, and his assertion that SCOTUS has not had opportunity to examine the Second Ammendment in its entire relation to private arms ownership, I don't think there is a contradiction in what he says.

Not that I am confident that SCOTUS would rule as RR wishes, especially if rulings come from an Obama packed Court.