Posted on 03/29/2008 9:33:11 AM PDT by kiriath_jearim
I hope you’re right. Even if SCOTUS decides for individual right, I wonder if the gun grabbers will come up with “excises” and “ammo taxes” to make the individual right more expensive to exercise. They’ll likely back the taxation idea with the “need to reimburse the county hospitals for treating indigent shooting victims” ploy.
All persons? Men, women, children, slaves, foreigners, the Indians, etc.? Are you sure?
I mean, I look at Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution and it reads, "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states ..."
In 1791, I'm not aware that all those persons were qualified to vote.
Always in there pitching for gun control, aren’t you, bobby?
You mean shooting accuracy? Sure. Practice, practice, practice.
And to ensure that you have guns to practice with, I'm a big believer in people knowing how that right is protected.
Yes, all persons. Well, all citizens. Indians and slaves were not considered citizens so they probably didn’t fall under the umbrella of “the people.” But otherwise, yes. Being qualified to vote is not a requirement to be a member of “the people,” as originally you had to be a property owner to vote in some states, along with having to have reached a certain minimum age, be male, etc.
I'm asking "originally". I asked you about 1791. I asked who were "the people" in 1791?
Article 1, Section 2 says only "the people" voted. In 1791, who voted? Certainly not women and children -- they were citizens but they didn't vote. Certainly not the propertyless -- as you said, owning property was a requirement to vote.
It appears as though "the people" were a small, select group indeed (about 15% of the population at the time). Who's left? Adult, white, male citizens. They were "the people". Their right, and only their right, to keep and bear arms was protected by the second amendment.
Who was qualified to be in a "well regulated Militia" in 1792? According to the Militia Act of 1792 .... adult, white, male citizens.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39388c210c1b.htm
Best regards,
For what it is worth, if a poster named RobertPaulsen engages you in casual conversation about the War on Drugs,Police Procedure, or the 2nd Amendment be sure to visit his links page before you become too deeply involved in debate.
Best regards,
“A well-stocked library, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read library books shall not be infringed.”
That’s an interesting example. The “right to keep and read library books” is limited. For instance:
You may only keep and read the books for a length of time specified when you take them from the library.
If you only read books at the library, you have to return them to the shelf or at least leave them when the library closes, and then leave the library.
Regulation beyond the limits of the right to keep and read library books is not infringement of the right to keep and read library books.
(For those who say that doesn’t apply to a person and the person’s home library, that’s true. But the example substitutes “well stocked library” for “well regulated militia” and it doesn’t address the right of the people to keep libraries, so logically we are discussing a Public Library.)
From my Post 40:
The argument will be that it's not a right which happens to be to keep and bear Arms but that it is a more limited right to keep and bear Arms and regulation beyond those limits is not infringement of the right to keep and bear Arms itself.
Nope, just your average Kentucky gun nut.
If there is a Constitutional Convention, they’ll try to repeal the Second Amendment, not rewrite it.
Has a nice ring for a bombing run.
The cheese looks yellow to me.
:)
You cannot be serious.
“The sad truth is that there is no English text that could be employed that would not be distorted by the depraved miscreants who oppose liberty. If it simply said “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”, they would assert that “keep” means in a government armory and “bear” means in the service of the state. No doubt within a decade schools would teach that the amendment was passed to guarantee the right of homosexuals to serve in the military.”
I went back to the original meaning and compared those with the protected right to keep and bear arms with those in a well regulated Militia. Turns out they're the same group.
If the right was protected for self defense and hunting, why was it only protected for less than 20% of the population?
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.