Posted on 11/27/2007 2:58:46 PM PST by neverdem
Why do you insist on trying to treat those who own guns as either children or criminals? Your every argument shows your support for such a priori restraints.
Women and slaves/freedmen fought in the Revolution. Bobbies claim RKBA doesn’t apply to them is a spurious lie at best.
You know it. I know it. Everyone else on this thread also knows it.
RP refuses to acknowledge it as his position is more tattered than Betsy Ross's flag.
The thing is, he is right about the current state of the Law. Between legislators ignoring the Constitutions limits, and activist judges twisting things through tainted rulings, we have come to this sorry state.
Where we differ from him is in the Historical antecedents and their impact on the effort to right these wrongs. He sees the history as upholding the current fiction despite all evidence presented to the contrary. To admit he's wrong about the history is to lose the argument over the veracity of his beloved modern legal system.
IOW... he apparently has a vested and personal interest that would be directly threatened should the modern unConstitutionl gun control house of cards come crashing down.
Tough cookies IMO... He should have chosen a different line of work. One that wouldn't aid and abet the criminals and politicians who kill people via "victim disarmament"...
5 March 1770 Crispus Attucks, a runaway slave turned Jacktar, and four other colonists were killed during the so-called Boston Massacre, in which British soldiers fired on unarmed men and boys who were causing a disturbance. He was the first African American killed during the American Revolution.
1774 Massachusetts began enlisting blacks in its militia companies.
1774 General Thomas Gage rejected the petition of Boston blacks, who offered to fight for the British in exchange for their freedom.
1774 New York offered to emancipate any slaves who served in the militia for 3 years.
1775 The Massachusetts Committee of Safety directed that only free blacks could serve in the militia.
19 April 1775 Blacks took part in the Battle of Lexington and Concord. The first armed clash between England and her colonists in North America was sparked by the dispatch of 700 British soldiers from the Boston garrison. Sent to seize colonial arms and possibly arrest rebel leaders, the "redcoats" encountered armed resistance instead. Pomp Blackman and Prince Estabrook were two of the black Minutemen who took part in the event immortalized as the "shot heard ‘round the world." Estabrook was killed during the fighting.
May 1775 Black patriots helped Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys take Fort Ticonderoga, New York, by surprise.
15 June 1775 The Continental Congress chose George Washington to head the newly established Continental Army. Shortly after assuming command, Washington ordered his officers not to recruit black troops. He later rescinded this order to allow the enlistment of free blacks. Congress subsequently approved this decision in 1776.
17 June 1775 Several black soldiers (most notably Peter Salem and Salem Poor) helped defend Breed’s Hill in the Battle of Bunker Hill on Charlestown Heights overlooking Boston Harbor. Although tactically a British victory, this confrontation was psychologically significant for the colonists. The patriots met British regulars and successfully held on to their position until they ran out of ammunition.
July 1775 American General Horatio Gates ordered his officers not to recruit "any deserter from the Ministerial army, nor any stroller, negro, or vagabond, or persons suspected of being an enemy to the liberty of America, nor any under eighteen years of age."
26 September 1775 Edward Rutledge proposed that all blacks in the Continental Army be discharged. Voted down by northern delegates, the issue cropped up again in October 1775, because of white fears that the Army was becoming a refuge for runaway slaves. At that time, a committee agreed to exclude blacks (especially slaves) from the service. However, after northern officers and soldiers strongly protested the measure, Washington reversed this decision in December 1775 to permit free blacks to serve.
November 1775 The "Ethiopian Regiment" was formed in Virginia after about 800 blacks responded to the royal governor’s offer of freedom to all male slaves who joined the British forces.
28 November 1775 The Continental Congress formally established the Continental Navy, after authorizing the construction of two warships on 13 October to defend against the British fleet. The approved rules regulating the new military service allowed both free and enslaved blacks to enlist.
Read the start of Article I, Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power to ..." It does not say, "The Congress is required to ..."
"Who rose the question of "What if Congress refuses?" Who?"
The question was raised by George Mason and discussed at the Virginia Ratifying Convention on June 14th, 1788.
"The general government ought, at the same time, to have some such power. But we need not give them power to abolish our militia. If they neglect to arm them, and prescribe proper discipline, they will be of no use."
At the same convention, Patrick Henry said, "But, says the honorable member, Congress will keep the militia armed; or, in other words, they will do their duty. Pardon me if I am too jealous and suspicious to confide in this remote possibility."
"When this power is given up to Congress without limitation or bounds, how will your militia be armed? You trust to chance; for sure I am that that nation which shall trust its liberties in other hands cannot long exist."
"Stupidest argument on Freerepublic ever."
In the future, I suggest you hold off on your conclusion until I respond. A couple of times now you've made an accusation, commented how ridiculous I was, then slinked away like a kicked dog when I totally demolished your statement.
If I can't support what I say, THEN call it stupid.
Able-bodied, white, male citizens, 18-45 years of age were not the "pool". They were the Militia. And they comprised about 20% of the population.
"If one didn't already have said weapons there were to be acquired by that individual. Not given to him by the state of federal govt."
That was the plan. But when the War of 1812 broke out, very few Militia members showed up with arms. Arms were provided to them by the federal government.
Which completely ignores the several HUNDRED privateers the fledgling government signed on to harass the Brits at sea. Those ships were granted Marque BECAUSE they were armed beforehand by their PRIVATE owners.
But that doesn't fit your template does it...
If children -- or anyone else -- has their individual RKBA protected, it would be by their state constitution, not the second amendment.
You're thinking the second amendment protects everyone and everything -- National Guard, unorganized militia, kindergartners, little old ladies, national defense, home defense, personal defense, handguns, machine guns, nuclear weapons, on and on and on.
Well, no wonder you sound ridiculous. Anyone would. You're trying to solve the Grand Unification Theory using formulas from calculus and geometry.
There is no Grand Unification. There is the second amendment and there are state constitutions. They protect different arms for different people for different reasons.
That should be a decision made by each state as to how they wish to maintain their militia.
The Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own and carry weapons regardless of their affiliation with any organization.
The tangent that Retarded Pinhead has taken you down is his own personal opinion and spin in the hopes of a more fascist state which he clearly desires.
He is making an argument that he can’t support with case law, ignoring SCOTUS precedent that refutes his assertions at every turn.
It is useless to attempt to educate this troll.
See #352.
You are wasting your time and energy on this moron.
Was that always true? From the day the second amendment was written?
Or is that a page from your "living" constitition -- the Abundy "it is what I say it is" constitution?
'Cause I don't remember everyone always having that right protected.
It says "the people", not "the militias".
You're thinking the second amendment protects everyone and everything -- National Guard, unorganized militia, kindergartners, little old ladies, national defense, home defense, personal defense, handguns, machine guns, nuclear weapons, on and on and on.
Er... that's what the Founders said too dumbass.
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." - Samuel Adams, in Phila. Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789
They protect different arms for different people for different reasons.
You say this, despite any evidence to support your idiotic theory. Sorry... you lose.
"Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the 'real' object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" - Patrick Henry, speech of June 9 1788
The Right is inherent. The Second Amendment protects said Right from "infringement" from any quarter. Not as a side-effect of militia service, and not just limited to the FedGov (via Art 6 para 2), but so that militia service is at all possible should the government fail in its other duties.
Agreed. However, it is destructive to allow his idiotic assertions to go unchallenged as well.
That appears nowhere in the Militia Act and you know it. Lets stick to the time-line your trying to use to defend your argument. The TIME and DATE the 2nd was ratified.
That's because you weren't alive then. To make matters worse, you refuse to learn from history.
This makes you either Insane, Stupid, or Evil. Or possibly a combination of all three...
Gotta sign up for their genealogy service to get at the records themselves though...
Yes I know it. I never said it did. Since when would a state decision appear in a Congressional Act?
I gave my opinion and said that it should be a state decision as to how they handle their Militia. If they want the weapons to go home, or if they want them stored in an armory, that's up to each state.
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.