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

To: robertpaulsen

I understand your argument, and if the court chose to be very inflexible, it might agree.

However, the phrase “the people” appears 5 times in the Bill of Rights, and no one argues that in the 4 instances it’s used apart from the second amendment that it means anything other than ‘everyone’. The fourth amendment states:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. “

No one would argue that the use of “the people” in this amendment was only intended to apply to ‘adult white males’. It’s difficult to see why they would not extend that same meaning to the 2nd amendment.


46 posted on 11/27/2007 5:36:38 PM PST by navyguy (Some days you are the pigeon, some days you are the statue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]


To: navyguy
"No one would argue that the use of “the people” in this amendment was only intended to apply to ‘adult white males’"

Actually it was argued, and argued successfully that "the people" in all the instances you mentioned referred to a select group of individuals. In 1792, that description only fit adult, white, male citizens.

See my post #85.

87 posted on 11/28/2007 4:59:42 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | 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