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

To: SW6906
"I cannot for the life of me understand these people who believe that the Constitution is a living, breathing document open to constant reinterpretation. It means what the authors intended it to mean, period."

And, at the time, they intended it to apply only to white, male citizens, 18-45 years of age. The second amendment didn't protect women, non-whites, children, or non-citizens.

"How can it suddenly mean a state right when used in the Second?"

It doesn't. The article refers to a "collective right", meaning those in a Militia, collectively, have their RKBA protected from federal infringement.

"Everywhere else in the Constitution and Bill of Rights where the words "the people" is used, it is meant as an individual right"

No, "the people" refer to a particular group. Please see my post #47.

62 posted on 07/07/2007 8:29:03 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies ]


To: robertpaulsen

Sophistry and pretzel logic. There is no such thing as a “collective right” and without that your argument collapses in a heap.


63 posted on 07/07/2007 8:34:44 AM PDT by TigersEye (My heart is broken but my conscience knows its cause.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies ]

To: robertpaulsen
Interesting interpretation. Wasn't the Constitution later amended to extend the rights to the other groups (non-whites, women)? I don't see where what you're saying has any bearing on todays argument. My understanding still applies: the original meaning is how it should be interpreted. That is what was meant when it was written. If you want it to have a different meaning, amend it via the amendment process in the Constitution.

Regarding the collective right, those on the left always interpret it to mean the right of the state (usually via the National Guard or the military), not a right of any collection of citizens. That is what I cannot understand: how do these people understand "the people" in the First Amendment to mean absolutely an individual right, but when "the people" is used in the second, it now means a state right?

65 posted on 07/07/2007 8:40:15 AM PDT by SW6906 (6 things you can't have too much of: sex, money, firewood, horsepower, guns and ammunition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies ]

To: robertpaulsen
And, at the time, they intended it to apply only to white, male citizens, 18-45 years of age.

Who are these phantasms you refer to as "they?" Clearly the following Founders didn't intend what you claim.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." ~Thomas Jefferson, 1776

"What is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." ~George Mason, 1788

"The said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." ~Samuel Adams, 1788

"The militia is our ultimate safety. We can have no security without it. The great object is that every man be armed." ~Patrick Henry

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” Richard Henry Lee. Letter from a Federal Farmer to the Republic. Letter XVIII


72 posted on 07/07/2007 8:57:19 AM PDT by TigersEye (My heart is broken but my conscience knows its cause.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies ]

To: robertpaulsen
No, "the people" refer to a particular group. Please see my post #47.

When the government comes for this "peoples" guns, I'll refer them to Rule 308, subchapter AP.

294 posted on 07/08/2007 9:44:21 PM PDT by Ancesthntr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | 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