Guns are no more dangerous than cars and America would probably be safer if more people walked around carrying Uzis like they do in Israel. "You walk around the streets of Israel and you see every other person carrying arms and Uzis and so forth and believe me, you do not feel less safe on that account," said Alan Keyes, (R) U.S. Senate candidate.Although we've known this was Keyes' opinion all along, make sure to watch the video to hear Keyes say this with a straight face. Then, there's this:
"The accusation that Alan Keyes would arm the whole world is not I think nearly as damning as the truth that Barack Obama would only arm half the world. The criminal half. I frankly find this prospect to be hell itself," said Keyes.So a million things could be said, but I'm going with this: What about federalism? If Keyes doesn't think the First Amendment should be incorporated upon, or apply to, the states and local governments, why should the Second Amendment? In other words, if a local government enacts a law prohibiting gun ownership (as Wilmette did), why does Keyes want to overrule it? Shouldn't federalism prevail? Additional information about the application of the Second Amendment to the states from findlaw.com:
Whatever the [Second] Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state or private restraints.With the footnote to "state" adding:
.In the end, from gun control to running for Senate, apparently federalism is only important to Keyes when it comes to establishing a Christian state. Update: I should add, though, that the Illinois Constitution in Section 22 has a "RIGHT TO ARMS" provision that provides "Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Presumably, it has subsequently been interpreted by Illinois state courts to uphold laws such as the Wilmette law. Illinois also has a religious freedom provision that provides that "No person shall be required to attend or support any ministry or place of worship against his consent, nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship." Again, whether state or federal law, Keyes seems to want to pick and choose his amendments. Update 2: Just for the record, Keyes makes no mention of the Illinois constitution, just the federal one.
Footnote 2] Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886). See also Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894); Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 281-282 (1897). The non-application of the Second Amendment to the States is good law today. Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F. 2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 863 (1983)(emphasis added).