Posted on 02/04/2008 11:35:06 AM PST by ctdonath2
Today, attorneys challenging Washington, D.C’s 31-year-old gun prohibition laws filed their written arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at dcguncase.com ...
ROFL indeed...
It doesn't say that. You made that up.
It’s a red herring that is also irrelevant. You know this.
It wasn’t a restriction, it was a neglect. What they wrote in no way was intended to facilitate prohibition. They wanted to make sure that those who were culturally expected to engage in combat could do so; this in no way was meant to be construed as a prohibition of others being similarly armed. Our recent corrections of the law, making it explicitly clear that everyone is included in “the people”, was done precisely because people like you were abusing linguistic limitations & conventions to deny individuals their natural rights. George Washington would have been at minimum puzzled by the notion that Martha could somehow be denied RKBA while he was away.
Pfffft! He would tell ME that. Plus, he would tell me that she had no right to vote, to assemble, or to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Women were not "full" citizens.
That said, I'm sure Mrs. Washington's individual RKBA was protected by her state constitution. As is yours today.
I see. A mere oversight. They meant to write something else, but they were in a hurry - you know how these things happen.
I went back to 1792 because we had a Militia back then and it's much easier to see the original meaning of the Founding Fathers.
But, as you say, that's all outdated and you believe we should go with a living constitution. You know, get with the times.
I hope that you are correct.
Fine. But irrelevant, as the rights protected by the 2nd extend beyond mere militia service. That military weapons are protected is absolutely fine by me - I can't wait to get a full auto M16 or BAR.
Bull$hit. And after you ASSERT that 50 more times it will still be bull$hit.
No, you had to obfuscate to avoid admitting that you are wrong.
Gad I love that kind of talk.
“At least in Massachusetts, we did. The Minute Men were definitely well regulated and the regular militia companies, who were not quite as well trained, were also pretty well regulated. Ask General Gage and Lt. Col Smith of His Majesty’s Army. If not for Gage sending up Lord Percy with a couple of cannon, while the colonial cannon had been dismounted and hidden so the Regulars could not confiscate them, and their carriages burned by the Regulars, Lt.Col. Smith’s force would have been all but wiped out. And that was with very little input from “higher command” on the colonial militia side. Even the “Old Men of Menotomy” were pretty well-regulated, in spite of being totally unorganzied, and over age. Even old “Mother Mother Batherick” proved to be pretty well-regulated.
Make no mistake, the first battle of the Revolution was fought between a “well-regulated” militia force and the British Regular Army, not between an armed mob and a much better trained and equipped Regular Army force.”
I will say it again. WE did not have a well regulated militia. We, as a nation, did not exist until after the Revolutionary war. All militia, both those who fought for England and those who fought against England belonged to the English.
A lame difference without distinction (for purposes of this discussion). George Washington et al did not spring into existence on July 4, 1776 (or whenever the symbology changed to your satisfaction). If anything, it shows the reverse of what you attempt to: the people, acting _outside_ government prohibitions, formed a militia with militia-suitable arms - an act later formally protected by the 2nd Amendment.
Of course it reads that way... but that "preamble" does not grammatically modify the operative clause. In the commerce clause, the phrases "with foreign nations", "among the several States" and "with the Indian Tribes" do modify "commerce.
You really don't see a conflict between "The right is not protected for all persons. It's not even protected for all citizens." and "NOT a restriction on who may keep and bear arms"?
If so, you're farther gone than I thought.
Of course it would. The Boston Artillery Company, a militia company not controlled by the Crown, owned two of the cannon that the Regulars were trying to confiscate. They had control of two others that had been purchased for them by the Massachusetts General Court (the colonial (and now Commonwealth) legislature). Arguable they owned those as well.
Many private ship owners owned similar, or larger, both for protection against pirates, and for use when the ship was acting as a privateer. The Constitution acknowledges this when it grants Congress the power to grant letters of Marque and Reprisal. No point in authorizing someone to sink or capture the ships of your enemy, if they don't have armed ships with which to do it... and you couldn't just go buy a bunch of cannon and a ship on the spur of the moment, you had to own them before hand, or purchase them as a package from someone who did own them.
Yes it does, but it does not modify "right of the people". The people included more than just the militia, even then. You could be overage, or otherwise disqualified from militia service and still be a freeholder who could and did vote. But even those who could not vote, still had the right to peaceably assemble, and the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreassonable searches and seizures. They also had the other rights "retained by the people".
But they also could not be too old. But those white adult males who were too old to be militia eligible were still were part of the group, "the people". Thus even then, the people and the militia were not the same. The right was also protected for those old dudes, even though they were not part of the federal militia. (I'm too old for the federal militia, but my state still says I'm a member of the militia of the state)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.