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

To: robertpaulsen

You need to go back to English Class, the “A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state,” does not say that only if you are a member of a militia do you have an uninfringable individual right to keep and bear arms. It is simply saying that one reason, among many others, that “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is that a well regulated militia is necessary to a free state.

Ravenstar


50 posted on 03/17/2008 6:02:17 PM PDT by Ravenstar (Reinstitute the Constitution as the Ultimate Law of the Land)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]


To: Ravenstar
"It is simply saying that one reason, among many others, that “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is that a well regulated militia is necessary to a free state."

Ah. So there are other reasons. I'd guess self defense would be one. Hunting would be another.

If that's true, then why did the Founding Fathers only protect the right for "the people" -- adult, white, male citizens -- instead of "all persons" or even "all citizens"?

Why wasn't the right protected for teens and women? Surely they had a need to hunt and to defend themselves. What about foreign visitors?

53 posted on 03/17/2008 6:18:32 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | 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