Posted on 11/27/2007 2:58:46 PM PST by neverdem
BS. See paragraph 3 of my Post #96. The idea that "the people" was ever intended to be so narrowly construed is nonsense.
It is his hope. He's a statist to the bone.
Yes on voting - because there's only one time and place to vote.
Yes on assembling - because the very definition of an assembly requires at least two people.
BS on the RKBA, because one can keep and bear arms in LOTS of other circumstances besides the time and place that one is performing one's militia duties.
The militia is a meaningless concept without the general ownership and use (i.e. practice) of firearms outside of the militia. A bunch of people with no guns in their homes and who are only required to practice once a year makes for a pretty crappy form of national defense - and the Founders knew that. People at Lexington and Concord had their own, individually-owned, firearms IN THEIR HOMES. Many of them were younger than 17, and many were older than 45 (in fact, there's an example of one Sam Whittemore, age 80, who killed a couple of Redcoats in the battle). To suggest that the Founders had a more narrow view of gun ownership and use than the very ownership and use that allowed us to successfully fight the British is absurd at best.
Go crawl back into your statist hole. Your time will come again, though hopefully not for at least a few decades.
Oh, do you mean exclude them permanently? Yes, you're right.
Instead, they protected the right for "the people" which, in 1792, excluded women and blacks but, today, includes them.
"Do you have any understanding of the 9th Amendment?"
Yes. But it appears you don't. The 9th amendment also refers to "the people" which, in 1792, excluded women and blacks. So, where are they getting their rights protected?
"whom"....it's "whom", not "who"
"...whom were "the people" the Founders were referring to?"
The subject of the sentence is "the founders", not "who". Structurally speaking, your sentence is a butchery of the English language. Which is interesting, because here you are attempting to parse the term "people" for everyone and you cannot even master the simple usage of the pronouns "who" and "whom".
The grammatical correction is free. This time. As long as you promise not to stink up any more RKBA threads.
Now run along to DU and play nice.
That's the same question the Founders asked themselves. So they wrote the second aamendment to prevent the federal government from infringing the ability of a state to arm themselves and form a Militia.
And we're supposed to believe they wrote it in such a way as to produce exactly what they were trying to prevent.
So women could be tortured by agents of the fed.gov, because they weren't protected by being part of "the people?" Similarly, they could be tried in secret based on evidence obtained without a warrant, and sentenced to harsh sentences for minor infractions such as walking on the grass of a federal property? REALLY???
You best go back to the well for a drink of common sense, following by a swig of perspective.
Also, if you read the Parker decision, you'll find that the DC Circuit agrees that women were not included in "the people" and had no 4th amendment protection.
He showed up remarkably early this time. Usually he has the courtesy to hang back for about 100 posts before hijacking the thread.
By your account they don't have any right to arm themselves until they've formed a well regulated militia. You can't have a well-regulated militia without arms, so we're pretty well screwed. Nice work.
Fact: in NY, a rifle is legally NOT a firearm.
...
Because of that, it's easier to examine the relationship between those who comprised "the people" in 1792 and those who comprised the Militia in 1792. Turns out they were the same individuals.
The Militia Act of 1792 defines the militia as "... each and 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 (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia..."
So, unless you are asserting that any white male over the age of 45 can no longer participate in electing House representatives, those two groups are NOT the same. One is a subset of the other.
The Militia is a subset of "the People."
If all you can add to a thread is grammar correction, then at least do so correctly. Since when do we end sentences in a preposition?
Here ya go. "When the second amendment was ratified in 1791, to whom were the Founders referring when they wrote "the people"?
Nothing worse than a dumb smartass.
"While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."
-- UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ, 494 U.S. 259 (1990)
(This U.S. Supreme Court holding was referenced in the Parker case.)
I think that you are reading this incorrectly: I DON'T read this decision as meaning that those who are "part of the national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community" doesn't include women. Blacks, in 1792, may have been different. BUT there is no way on Earth for you to convince me that in 1792 a non-propertied woman had no protections whatsoever under those Amendments referencing "the people."
I'll ask you again: Do you believe that a white woman who did not own property in 1792 could have legally been tortured by agents of the federal government? Note that this would clearly have not been legal to do to a property-owning, adult white male, under the terms of the 8th Amendment.
If you answer "yes" to that, you'll at least be consistent. You'll also be wrong, and prove yourself as such to everyone here. If you answer "no" to that, then your interpretation is wrong. Bottom line: YOU ARE WRONG.
Ah, by that I see you've lost touch with reality. Perhaps you'll regain it on another thread. Until then, good bye.
Over time, "the people" to wit voters has been challenged as unconstitutionally limited, and has been subsequently been expanded to include all but children, felons and non-citizens. Ergo, his "white male citizen landowners" claim was squashed decades ago. He can't claim that "the people" per the 2ndA today must be limited not to "the people" per voters today, but instead somehow must be limited to "the people" per voters in 1792. If he's going to claim that voting "people" are the same as 2ndA "people" (a viable theory), then today anyone who can register to vote can enjoy RKBA - and that includes ALL adult non-felon citizens.
So thank you, rp, for agreeing that anyone who can, today, register to vote has a 2ndA-protected right to keep & bear arms. Pity you insist on dancing around the subject and refuse to actually SAY it.
Looks like he sank your battleship.
Well Mr. dumb smartass, you might note that it was YOU that I quoted and it was YOU who ended the sentence in a preposition! All I did copy/paste YOUR sentence!
Go read your post #5. MORON!!!
HAHAHAHAHA!
You are SUCH a joke!
So that’s two grammatical corrections! One by me. The other by YOU and you pointed that one out yourself and then called YOURSELF a dumb smartass!
And here you are...the self-proclaimed FRexpert on all things RKBA, trying to tell others what the meaning of the word “people” is!
Is that you Bill Clinton?
No...that’s right...according to YOUR OWN WORDS, you’re now the official Mr. Dumb Smartass. Your words, not mine!
HAHAHAHAHA
Hey everyone...you see that zinger by rp?
What an equine derriere you are rp!
...run along and play with your friends at DU!
Your good. Hat tip!
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.