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

To: Reaganwuzthebest
"Prove to us that a landowner who got old and could no longer fight in a militia suddenly lost his rights to keep and bear arms."

I never said he lost his right. I said his RKBA was no longer protected by the second amendment.

Why would his right need to be protected? If he's no longer in the Militia, why would the second amendment protect his right?

"then out goes the gun correct?"

Out goes the gun? What's next, we hang the poor guy?

Out goes the gun protection, yes. He's still allowed to keep it until a law is written saying he can't. You know of any laws against a 60-year-old owning a musket? Think one might be written soon?

Millions of Californians don't have their RKBA protected yet they legally own guns.

246 posted on 11/29/2007 1:11:39 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies ]


To: robertpaulsen
I never said he lost his right. I said his RKBA was no longer protected by the second amendment.

But that's where we disagree as it's strictly your opinion of which you've provided no evidence. Surely there has to be some court case in the early to mid 19th century where the government said sorry old timer but we can take your musket as you're no longer protected by the 2A. The fact is that type of thinking only came into being in the 20th century.

247 posted on 11/29/2007 1:17:50 PM PST by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies ]

To: robertpaulsen
If he's no longer in the Militia, why would the second amendment protect his right?

Because, even by your contorted definition of "the people", he's still a part of "the people", white, male, landowner/taxpayer) and thus the second amendment which protects a "right of the people" still protects his right to keep and bear arms.

Otherwise you are saying it's "right of the militiamen", but the Constitution terms it the "right of the people".

If it's a right of the people, then one must ask, which subset. No subset is defined by the language of the second amendment. Although I'm sure you'll say it is, experts in English grammar say otherwise. Thus the phrase "the people" can only refer to the whole people. In fact that's exactly what Chief Judge Joseph Henry Lumpkin, of the Georgia Supreme Court said it meant in Nunn v. State, 1 Kelly 243 (Ga. 1846)

"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed;" The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and hear arms of every description, not merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia,

276 posted on 11/29/2007 4:35:16 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | 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