Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Still Thinking
"Anyone who doesn’t work for the government, and to a lesser extent, even those people as respects their private lives, because they’re citizens too."

Thank you for your response. Because you had the guts to answer (unlike some of the spineless wonders on this thread), I'll be nice.

When the second amendment was written, it only protected the right for white male citizens, 18-45 years of age. Non-whites (slaves) were not protected. Non-citizens, women, and children were not protected under the second amendment.

"The people" in the second amendment did not mean "all persons". When the Founding Fathers wanted to protect the right of an individual, they referred to "person", or "citizen" or "he/him".

134 posted on 07/07/2007 12:50:47 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies ]


To: robertpaulsen
So your belief is that since in that day and age, free adult males were considered to some extent the repositories of rights on behalf of their families, that the 2A was not then intended to apply to all citizens? I’m skeptical, but your opinion is at least somewhat arguable. However, it still seems to me to be irrelevant, because pretty much every other right granted “the people” is assumed to apply to citizens in general. Suffrage, etc. One could make the argument that that’s a mistake, but nevertheless, there it is, and I can’t see why bearing arms should be the lone exception to that trend.
136 posted on 07/07/2007 12:56:16 PM PDT by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies ]

To: robertpaulsen

“When the second amendment was written, it only protected the right for white male citizens, 18-45 years of age. Non-whites (slaves) were not protected. Non-citizens, women, and children were not protected under the second amendment.”

You keep repeating this. I’m going to have to ask that you point out in the US Constitution where it says this. The only place ANY distinction was made was apportionment, and not in the context of any rights, but instead in the duties and commissions of the government.

You believe that the only rights we have are the ones approved of by the judiciary. “Incorporated” you call it.

I keep pointing you toward Article VI para 2. The Constitution IS the Supreme Law of the land, regardless of what your beloved judges do or do not say. Each state had to ratify the Constitution in its entirety, accepting all the principles and rights affirmed therein. The Bill of Rights applies across the board.

And your wordplay doesn’t change the fact that the right to keep and bear arms pre-dates the Founding.

None of your beloved black-robed tyrants can change that.

God help them if they try.


151 posted on 07/07/2007 1:49:57 PM PDT by ex 98C MI Dude (All my hate cannot be found)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson