[Joe Brower]

robertpaulsen wrote:

The right of assembly and the right to petition the government were protected only for "the people" - white, male, citizen landowners."

And

"I was merely correcting the poster who thought the Founding Fathers intended to protect the right to keep and bear arms for all persons. They intended no such thing. They didn't even protect it for all citizens."

I beg to differ. My take on American history is that the founding fathers meant for the rights enjoyed by the ruling class to eventually be enjoyed by all people, not just their white male selves; Hamilton was more of the mind you describe, but Jefferson and Madison were not. Given the societal mores and prejudices of that time, though, to get the Constitution ratified at all, some things had to be left out. Colorable arguments have been made that the abolition of slavery was treated similarly, left for a later time, just in order to get _something_ established. "The perfect is the enemy of the good" I believe was the operating principle then as it is so often now.

You make what appears to me to be a leap of faith in your interpretation of the ruling on United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, stating that "white, male, citizen landowners" were the only ones with a "connection with this country". Granted, being able to vote was a great power they held over women, blacks, etc. at this nation's founding, but there is no language in that decision linking the extremely narrow criteria of having voting rights to an absolute "connection", a term that itself is, in legal terms, a mile wide.

Just my $0.02,

[Dead Corpse]

Don’t feed the troll. This isn’t the only issue they are a complete commie a$$tard on. The poster in question has an authoritarian streak a blue mile wide...

[EdReform]

Spot on. Well said

[robertpaulsen]

"but there is no language in that decision linking the extremely narrow criteria of having voting rights to an absolute "connection"

It's difficult to imagine a connection to a country which does not allow you to vote. That's not to say that if you aren't allowed to vote you don't love your country or you're not patriotic. But you have no say. So where's the "connection"?

"My take on American history is that the founding fathers meant for the rights enjoyed by the ruling class to eventually be enjoyed by all people"

All people or all citizens? Big difference. All citizens or certain citizens?

Did they mean to extend voting rights eventually to children? The insane? Foreign visitors? Illegal aliens? They are also people (persons). They all enjoy the inalienable rights to liberty and life.

Granted, we have expanded the definition of "the people" through the amendment process to include nonwhites and women. But it still doesn't include all persons or even all citizens. It still, today, refers to a select group.

[woollyone]

...to debate the self-proclaimed FRexpert on all things RKBA...well...that way lies madness Joe.

walk away Joe...just walk away.

;0)

[Pharmboy]

Voting for males came from the tradition of military service granting the vote for non-land owners. We even see the remnants of that today whereby young Mexican men of good character serve in the Armed Forces of the US of A and then become US citizens.

[blackie]

You are right Joe ~ don’t waste your time on those who refuse get it!

Be Ever Vigilant!

[Technogeeb]

I beg to differ. My take on American history is that the founding fathers meant for the rights enjoyed by the ruling class to eventually be enjoyed by all people, not just their white male selves; Hamilton was more of the mind you describe

Highly unlikely considering that Hamilton's mom was black.

The "US was created by and for white-male landowners" is little more than 20th century communist propaganda designed to portray the US as always having been an exploitive system. There was never any Federal constitutional requirement to own land in order to vote, and if it was limited to pure whites only then Hamilton himself would've been unable to vote due to his mixed heritage.

(Of course, this fact actually tends to reinforce your overall argument, even if it disproves your one concession to the previous bogus argument being presented).