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

To: KrisKrinkle
KrisKrinkle said: "... emphasis on exactly what it is that shall not be infringed. "

How is your statement relevant to the virtually total ban on law-abiding citizens carrying arms outside the home in New Jersey?

What do you think the people who fired the "shot heard round the world" were thinking when they denied to government the authority to "infringe" the right to keep and bear arms?

Please recall that the militia gathered outside Boston in April of 1775 were fighting their own government and their own regular army. The fighting started with government attempts to confiscate arms.

18 posted on 05/05/2014 11:03:53 AM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]


To: William Tell
How is your statement relevant to the virtually total ban on law-abiding citizens carrying arms outside the home in New Jersey?

I was responding to the question "Can anyone now think of a reason why a number of Supreme Court Justices are not now liable for impeachment for a breach of their oath of office ...?" by pointing out that the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is an undefined series of words, trying to show that the thing in regard to which they are accused of breaching their oath is undefined and needs better definition before we can accuse anyone of a breach in regard to it.

You wrote "virtually total ban on law-abiding citizens carrying arms outside the home in New Jersey" but I thought the case at hand was about self defense carry outside the home in New Jersey, which is not quite the same thing.

What do you think the people who fired the "shot heard round the world" were thinking when they denied to government the authority to "infringe" the right to keep and bear arms?

As I recall, they were thinking the government was coming to take the ordnance, munitions etc. held in their armory. I don't recall that they were thinking the government was coming to take anything from their homes, their houses.

Please recall that the militia gathered outside Boston in April of 1775 were fighting their own government and their own regular army. The fighting started with government attempts to confiscate arms.

I didn't know the case at hand was about confiscation beyond any confiscation that took place when the defendant was arrested.

My turn for questions: What is the scope-extent-definition of the words "the right of the people to bear arms"? Does one of the people who happens to be standing on the gallows awaiting execution have the right to keep and bear arms? Does someone on another's property have the right to keep and bear arms against the wishes of the property owner? Is a five year old one of the people with the right to keep and bear arms?

Regarding whatever your answers are, how do we know so just from the words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"?

20 posted on 05/05/2014 1:23:12 PM PDT by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the and breadth of "ignorance. individual be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | 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