Posted on 11/20/2007 10:14:54 AM PST by ctdonath2
Article I, Section 2 tells us who "the people" were in 1792 -- they were the voters. Who were the voters? Rich white guys.
The second amendment protects the RKBA of "the people". Who were "the people"? They were the voters. Rich white guys.
The Militia Act of 1792 tells us who was in the Militia. Rich white guys. See a pattern developing? Not much of stretch to say the second mendment protected the RKBA of those in a Militia.
The poster that posed that question to you is not worth your time. He routinely ignores answers to his bogus questions that refute his positions.
BTW, the answer to that question lies in the Dred Scot decision, where the opinion discusses what would happen if blacks were found to be persons and involves the justice lamenting that they would be able to carry firearms on their persons as they traveled about.
That's called SCOTUS precedent - but that poster to whom I have vowed never again to respond to, refuses to acknowledge when he is proven wrong regarding his assinine ideas regarding the second amendment.
One more like this and we're done. You are constantly misstating my position, and I'm really getting tired of it. Get your $hit together before you post to me again.
I never said women were prevented from assembling. I said their right to assemble WAS NOT PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT FROM FEDERAL INFRINGEMENT.
Got it?
"or that the government could invade the homes of single women"
Just look at the garbage you write. That the government could invade!? Who said that? Not me! I'm pretty darn sure I wrote that it wasn't protected, didn't I? Did I say ANYTHING about the government being allowed to invade?
"I’d like to see a judicial case that suggests only white property owners had those rights prior to the 14th Amendment."
You never read Parker? We're talking about the DC gun case and you never read Parker?
"In sum, the phrase “the right of the people,” when read intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual. This proposition is true even though “the people” at the time of the founding was not as inclusive a concept as “the people” today ... To the extent that non-whites, women, and the propertyless were excluded from the protections afforded to “the people,” the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is understood to have corrected that initial constitutional shortcoming."
You keep citing the Militia Act of 1792 but that only lays out who serves in the militia, not who had a right to own guns. And by the way, it is not limited to only property owners but "every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years."
Invade yes, that's what it is imo if government doesn't have a warrant to enter someone's home but does so arbitrarily. Now instead of babbling please cite any case law that said only property owners had rights guaranteed under the BoR. You keep telling us that was the law but are providing no evidence.
No. What would happen if the newly freed slaves were found to be Citizens of a state, not persons. As Citizens of a state, they would have all the rights of other Citizens of that state including the right to keep and bear arms.
It had nothing to do with the second amendment.
So you're wrong. Admit it.
Make up your mind, which is it, were "The People" only property owners who did the voting or were they every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States? You can't have it both ways no matter how hard you try.
Article I, Section 2 says that only "the people" vote, correct? And you just admitted that "It's true that voters at the time were limited to rich white guys who owned property".
Ipso facto, "the people" were limited to rich white guys who owned property. Correct?
And "the people" (the rich white guys who owned property) were the only ones whose RKBA was protected. Correct?
And who was in the Militia? Same guys whose RKBA was protected. But you're trying to tell me that's just a coincidence.
Rich white guys are the only ones who have their arms protected and rich white guys are the only ones in a Militia -- but there's no connection. It's NOT true that the second amendment protects the arms of those individuals in a Militia.
You're in denial. Big time.
The bottom line "The People" as defined in the BoR included all citizens, whether rich property owners or not.
I NEVER said that. Geez Louise already! I told you who "the people" were. I even gave you your "judicial case" as proof of who "the people" were. You even admitted who "the people" were when you said they were the voters. And "the people" were the same "the people" in the second amendment. And the 1st. And the 4th. White male citizen landowners -- rich white guys.
THEN, I asked you to look at who was in the Militia. Lo and behold, white male citizen landowners. Their guns were protected by the second amendment.
Now, having no argument whatsoever, you resort to nitpicking. But, but, it wasn't just landowners robertopaulsen. Hey, you know what? There were few freed slaves in the Militia, too. Gasp! Well, I guess that totally destroys my argument, huh?
"The People" as defined in the BoR included all citizens, whether rich property owners or not."
Youi write that even though you admitted that voters at the time were limited to rich white guys who owned property, and Article I, Section 2 describes voters as "the people":
"The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states"
Oh, I asked you to be careful when quoting me. You weren't. We're done on this thread.
Of course Chief Justice Taney would disagree with this moron, since Taney opined in Scott the following: The words "people of the United States" and "citizens" are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing.
Damn, that's called precedent and I'm sure that it will be useful in the Heller case. But yet I'm supposed to admit I'm wrong to this jackass?
Right.
In the interest of preserving for posterity, just how much of a moron this poster is, I'm including the following:
SCOTUS determined the issue to be the following: The only relevant question, therefore, was whether, at the time the Constitution was ratified, Scott could have been considered a citizen of any state within the meaning of Article III.
and then went on to rule that the founders believed slaves to be:
"beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect."
That somehow the decision isn't relevant and I'm wrong, but notice what the Court ruled would be the consequence of finding a negro to be a citizen of a state:
"It would give to persons of the negro race, …the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, …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."
Yet on this board this poster maintains that the second amendment has no effect on individuals with respect to the states. Yet here is supreme court precedent on that very issue, as well as the original issue posed by this poster: "But can you find for me one quote that says the second amendment protects a freely armed populous?
I did and he still lies and says I'm wrong. The Scott court specifically held that saying "people of the United States" is the same as saying "citizen." So I'm right - again, and this moron poster is wrong - again.
The Scott Court also spells out all the rights a slave would enjoy and they are all rights enumerated in the BOR - including the right to travel from state to state - which is only protected by the US Constitution.
It's time for him to STFU.
See my #252 for who the people are.
That was expanded by SCOTUS in Verdigo-Urquidez.(SP?)
This idiot knows this, as I have refuted his assertion before but he ignores everything that anyone points out to him that refutes his assertions.
Some day the Mods will get tired of him. Right now I guess he's the equivalent of the FR Court Jester.
I think the Mods keep him and a couple others around for "agents provocateurs" value. They draw out issues like this and are good for the hit count.
Unless they lose their cool and start slinging overt insults, the Mods will probably let them continue to exist. I know at least one of them got sidelined for a bit for getting a bit too mouthy.
Consider them some easy target practice. Reactive targets are more fun when you can shoot them more than once. ;-)
I'd love to sneak up on him with about 300 OC paintball rounds...he deserves it.
Really, from your post of 236:
If we're looking for the original meaning of "the people" in the second amendment, then 1792 is the place to go. We have the Militia Act telling us exactly who was in the Militia.
There it is, you are telling us "The People" is defined by the Act but unfortunately for you it is not just rich guys who own property but all able-bodied men. There's a little intellectual dishonesty going on there as I can't be the first person who's pointed out to you that the Militia Act did not apply only to those who owned property.
Oh, I asked you to be careful when quoting me. You weren't. We're done on this thread.
Your quotes are there for everyone to see yet your response: "we're done on this thread". Very poor way to debate, it's like a kid who doesn't get his way on the playground and takes his ball and goes home.
Thankfully your opinion is that of a small minority and I'm optimistic the USSC will go the right way.
This should read the following:
Yet on this board this poster maintains that the second amendment has no effect on individuals with respect to the federal government. (Actually I'm not sure what this jackass maintains. His positions change from post to post and thread to thread. Sometimes it appears that he doesn't think the states can protect second amendment rights and sometimes they can. Regardless, the Scott case pretty much addresses the all of the issues regarding the second amendment, what political entities it relates to, and just WTF "the people" are.)
Scott is a dual federalism case, but so close in time to the founding of the country that at issue was whether one state that makes slaves a citizen of that state automatically made them citizens of the US. There is an analysis of whether slaves already in country became citizens upon signing. Scott says no. (although it appears Taney was somewhat troubled by that)
The reason that was important was that at the time the constitution was signed, all citizens of each signatory state became citizens of the US.
The reason that is important to this discussion is that the Scott court went on to elaborate just what rights those US citizens enjoyed based upon the US constitution - including carrying arms on their persons. The discussion of hte rights they would enjoy if they were citizens of one state was a discussion of the effect nationally of that one state's actions - IOW, what rights they would enjoy under the US constitution.
Sorry, it was a long post involving multiple research windows.
Hopefully, the SCOTUS doing the “right thing” will be punishment enough for him.
We’ll have to find him a bad recipe book for crow.
"The People" in the BoR has always to my knowledge been defined as all citizens of the US throughout its history and that's a very important distinction because such an interpretation includes women as well. And since they obviously weren't required to serve in a militia that by itself provides a reasonable argument in regards to the separation of the clauses in the 2nd Amendment. The first part lays out one purpose for the right to keep arms but not necessarily the only one.
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.