Posted on 06/04/2009 5:59:45 AM PDT by epow
Nope, it's because the legislation makes it clear that they do not have an actual "right" to a firearm. If I specifically tell you that you "may be permitted" to do something, there is no way you can construe that you have a right to do it.
Nope, it's an absurdity, just like the last several times you sourcelessly asserted it.
Nope. Wrong again.
But it is an absurdity that you you still can't answer a very simple question.
Even if they had been able to obtain a license on behalf of the slave ( which could only be applied for by the slave's owner ), did not the owner still have the right to confiscate the slave's firearm if he choose to do so...? Yes, or no...?
All the *sources* in the world don't mean squat if they don't even enable you to give a "yes" or "no" answer to a very simple question.
False, as always. The legislation explicitly granted the legal right to bear arms to those slaves who received the permit.
You have the right to drive on public streets, if you have a drivers license. You have the right to vote, if you are properly registered. You have a right to carry a concealed weapon, if you have the required carry permit.
You're reduced to absurdly blathering that rights aren't rights, just because you petulantly say so.
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.