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

To: EXCH54FE

soory- Judge you are dead wrong-wrong-wrong - the right to bear arms is a WAR term which EXPLICITLY means to carry, furnish, be equipped with, support arms, for WAR.
Look it up in the 19th century Webster dictionaries that have been faithful to its centuries-old true etymology.
KEEP has nothing to do with arms in the home- it means you can KEEP ARMS ANYWHERE=- VIZ= The Second Amendment has no limits on geographical location nor firepower.

French, Dutch and English documents dating from the 15th Century all have BEARING ARMS and WAR in the same sentences. Look it up, BEARING ARMS is never used anywhere in self defence “AGAINST BURGLARS..”
preposterous!
Definition of to “KEEP” ‘ to preserve and maintain.. TO GUARD; DEFEND
to “KEEP” `means NOT TO LET GO ONE`S POSSESSION OR CONTROL’
“KEEPER”,n., “one who watches, GUARDS, maintains”

to “BEAR: 1. to support and move; CARRY.
2. to be equipped furnished ..as to BEAR A SWORD.
3, to be directed; to be pointed, as TO PLANT GUNS TO BEAR UPON AS TRENCH’”

Webster`s Dictionary 1887


10 posted on 02/22/2013 2:05:30 PM PST by bunkerhill7 ("The Second Amendment has no limits on firepower"-NY State Senator Marchione.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: bunkerhill7
In the 1856 Supreme Court case "Dred Scott v Sanford", the Supremes ruled that it was absurd to think that a black former slave could have the rights of a citizen, which the Chief Justice explained included:
More especially, it cannot be believed that the large slaveholding States regarded them as included in the word citizens, or would have consented to a Constitution which might compel them to receive them in that character from another State. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety.

It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.


17 posted on 02/22/2013 3:15:39 PM PST by PapaBear3625 (You don't notice it's a police state until the police come for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | 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