Posted on 03/22/2008 12:02:27 AM PDT by neverdem
WOMEN citizens too? They weren't part of the militia.
And what happened to the observation that only two of the original states explicitly included use of arms for self-defense? Did the Supreme Court overlook the fact that "the right of the people to bear arms" was only intended to arm the state organized militia?
By what mechanism would a BLACK citizen become part of a WHITE militia? As you have often pointed out, BLACK "persons" don't have a protected right to bear arms in a militia.
Isn't it about time that you explained the critical difference between "small children" and "infants" in your argument concerning how the incapacity of "some persons", (note: not PEOPLE) is relevant to the right to keep and bear arms of law-abiding, competent adults? First amendment examples would be fine also.
And isn't a "Jagoff" someone who masturbates? Are you implying that anybody that questions your thinking is only doing so for personal pleasure and not to get an answer from you? I don't think that is the case at all.
More than likely.
Ah. Who decides? You? God?
Me.
Sure you do.
It quite plainly addresses rights, giving as plain examples the exercise of first, second, and ninth amendment rights. OBVIOUSLY it has to do with, among other things, the 2ndA.
It also has to do with rights as a citizen of the USA. The rights, as given as examples, indicate no limitation to the state’s protection of rights. Contrary to your claim, the point of the quote is that one may enter _any_ state and exercise these rights. There is no indication whatsoever of the person exercising the rights “of his home state” or “of the state he is in”; the rights are simply presented independent of, and expected to be protected despite, protection (or lack thereof) of a given right in a given state. There is no state-limiting qualifier on those rights.
Learn to read.
Indeed he does. If someone unduly threatens his life, he has the right to stop him as you indicated.
To respond a bit differently:
The whole point of that quote is obviously that there are rights which a citizen may exercise REGARDLESS of which state he is in.
I am usually prepared.
I never have had to, although I came close on two occasions (thank goodness I'm big, ugly and fast).
As I have gotten older, I reconsidered that position, as I only had myself to protect with no spouse and young adult children.
Then God gave me grandchildren, so I am back in full protection mode.
God has so much invested in me that I owe it to Him to keep breathing, no matter what everyday life deals up.
I intend to do so, even if it comes to using deadly force against an assailant.
You do agree that your state may regulate the conditions under which you may use your weapon for self defense?
For a guy who does not know how many Circuit Courts exist in the United States you sure manage to make the simple complicated until it is confusing beyond comprehension.
Let me see if I can understand this latest iteration of all your previous iterations.
It is your contention prisoners can acquire, transport, possess and use weapons, up to and including firearms as long as they do not have THE RIGHT to acquire, transport, possess and use weapons and certainly not a God given right to said same.
Does that reflect whatever it is you try to assert about prisoners and weapons?
Because frankly I am not sure I can figure it out from the unending barrage of posts you make to every banglist thread on Free Republic.
Oh, I gave up on you understanding anything a long time ago.
I'm content simply to correct your ignorant and erroneous posts.
Excellent. Here is your opportunity to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.
What have I said that is ignorant and erroneous?
Now, begone! You're a waste of my time.
The Penal Code from two states from opposite coasts:
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+53.1-203
4. Make, procure, secrete or have in his possession a knife, instrument, tool or other thing NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OR SHERIFF which is capable of causing death or bodily injury;
http://law.justia.com/washington/codes/title9/9.94.040.html
(2) Every person confined in a county or local correctional institution who, WITHOUT LEGAL AUTHORIZATION, while in the institution or while being conveyed to or from the institution, or while under the custody or supervision of institution officials, officers, or employees, or while on any premises subject to the control of the institution, knowingly possesses or has under his or her control any weapon, firearm, or any instrument that, if used, could produce serious bodily injury to the person of another.
Is that ignorant?
Is it a lie?
Is it erroneous?
No. Only I can make that decision.
So if you have a pit bull for self defense, YOU are the one who decides when to use the dog for self defense, not your state?
Then why did this guy get 8 years in prison? Are you saying he should have been found not guilty?
That would be a good start.
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.