To: Jeff Head
"then in order to effect that defense you should not be restricted in your means of using the common defenses of the day"It is up to each state to decide.
To: robertpaulsen
...and that is where we disagree fundamentally.
If it is an unalienable right to defend one's life, liberty and proprerty, and if a state cannot pass laws that infringe on those right by your own statements, then for a state to fundamentally restrict the unalienable right to self defense as regards the common arms of the day, measn that said state would infringes on and violates that right to self defense and would therefore itself unconstitutional.
From my perspective, the founders understood this and wrote it, unambiguously into the constitution.
285 posted on
03/21/2007 2:14:03 PM PDT by
Jeff Head
(Freedom is not free...never has been, never will be (www.dragonsfuryseries.com))
To: robertpaulsen
It is up to each state to decide. No, it isn't. Under the terms of the 2nd, 10th, and 14th A., those powers are "prohibited by it to the States".
306 posted on
03/21/2007 2:53:49 PM PDT by
LexBaird
(98% satisfaction guaranteed. There's just no pleasing some people.)
To: robertpaulsen
It is up to each state to decide.
You know, I keep seeing you write that but I guess I am just stupid. Maybe you can help me out. If the right of the state (to decide) was not to be infringed, why does the 2nd say 'the people' and not 'the state'?
330 posted on
03/21/2007 3:32:40 PM PDT by
Just sayin
(Is is what it is, for if it was anything else, it would be isn't.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson