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

To: William Tell
"The language of the Second Amendment makes clear that it refers to a pre-existing right."

Correct. The pre-existing individual right to keep arms, and bear those arms into battle, as part of a well regulated state Militia. That right is protected from federal infringement by the second amendment.

If there's some other pre-existing right you had in mind, I'd like to hear it -- because it means that right has been violated now for over 200 years, wouldn't you agree? And how is that possible?

204 posted on 11/21/2007 7:31:39 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies ]


To: robertpaulsen
Life liberty and pursuit of happiness. Your life is protected by your right to the means of defense — Your right to own weapons.

NO the violations have occurred recently as liberals had gotten bold in there attempts to substitute abortion for the Second Amendment. Before that, most people who wanted kept firearms and no one complained or thought anything of it.

Democrats, raise taxes fund socialism and gun control. If you can’t do it yourself, ask history what King George III had to say about it all.

219 posted on 11/21/2007 9:00:16 AM PST by Tarpon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies ]

To: robertpaulsen
robertpaulsen said: "If there's some other pre-existing right you had in mind, I'd like to hear it -- because it means that right has been violated now for over 200 years, wouldn't you agree?"

Most of the states which protect an individual right to keep and bear arms do so with the same reference to a pre-existing right.

In Pennsylvainia, passed in 1790:"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. "

It should be obvious that the grammar suggests that this pre-existing right included bearing arms in defence of the individual. And the wording makes clear that the right additionally includes the right to defend the state. So how does the pre-existing "right of the people" in the Second Amendment not include what the people in Pennsylvania recognized?

And further, the grossest violations of the Second Amendment began with the NFA 1934. Prior to that, most gun control was clearly aimed at disarming minorities. The Dred Scott decision makes clear that a free person could carry weapons wherever they went. The described right to keep and bear arms was not limited, despite the fact that freedom of speech was at that time.

221 posted on 11/21/2007 9:25:08 AM PST by William Tell (RKBA for California (rkba.members.sonic.net) - Volunteer by contacting Dave at rkba@sonic.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies ]

To: robertpaulsen
robertpaulsen said: "... because it means that right has been violated now for over 200 years, wouldn't you agree? And how is that possible?"

In another posting I pointed out that it is more like 75 years.

But why don't you tell us how long a right must be infringed before it ceases to exist? Is a century long enough? How about a decade?

The answer to your question, is that it is possible for our rights to be violated for lengthy periods of time because there are people like you who will twist the meaning of words to accomplish your own ends, regardless of what the words actually mean.

265 posted on 11/21/2007 1:59:08 PM PST by William Tell (RKBA for California (rkba.members.sonic.net) - Volunteer by contacting Dave at rkba@sonic.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | 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