Re: The Second Amendment Was Never Ratified And Therefore Not Constitutional


ozarkheart@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 16 Jul 2006 11:36:09 -0700, "The Lone Weasel"
<loneweasel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
The Lone Weasel wrote:
kp wrote:


Ammendment IX, however, does still apply:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

So, even if RKBA isn't enumerated, it existed before 1776 as a natural
right and therefore still exists.

The right of the People to keep and bear arms might go back to the
English Bill of Rights if you accept the fact that the People were none
other than the nobility and landed gentry. Commoners had no such
right, and Catholics had no right to bear arms no matter how wealthy
they were.

They had the right.

The nobles and landed gentry certainly had the right. Not commoners
like you, son.

You are still trying to claim rights come from some government body

As long as you're incapable of exercising your violent fantasies, it's
okay if you never understand what human rights are.

weasel. Perhaps in your mind, that is so.

No where else.

They were denied the ability to enjoy the right by those tyrants that held the power.

Loyal Englishmen were granted the right to bear arms. Common goobers
were not granted any rights, and none of these rights had anything to
do with natural rights, Goober.

Wrong.

See Aymette v. State (1840).

Simple contradiction - the gunlobby approved walk-off argument, eh
Gwennie?

Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.

Point proven.

___________________


In order to have a just and precise idea of the meaning of
the clause of the constitution under consideration, it will
be useful to look at the state of things in the history of
our ancestors, and thus comprehend the reason of its
introduction into our constitution.

By the act of 22 & 23 Car. II., ch. 25, sec. 3, it is
provided that no person who has not lands of the yearly
value of 100 pounds, other than the son and heir apparent of
an esquire, or other person of higher degree, etc., shall be
allowed to keep a gun, etc. By this act, persons of a
certain condition in life were allowed to keep arms, while a
large proportion of the people were entirely disarmed. But
King James II, by his own arbitrary power, and contrary to
law, disarmed the Protestant population, and quartered his
Catholic soldiers among the people. This, together with
other abuses, produced the revolution by which he was
compelled to abdicate the throne of England. William and
Mary succeeded him, and, in the first year of their reign,
Parliament passed an act recapitulating the abuses which
existed during the former reign, and declared the existence
of certain rights which they insisted upon as their
undoubted privileges. Among these abuses they say, in sec.
5, that he had kept a "standing army within the kingdom in
time of peace, without the consent of Parliament, and
quartered soldiers contrary to law." Sec. 6. "By causing
several good subjects, being Protestants, to be disarmed, at
the same time when Papists were both armed and employed
contrary to law."

In the declaration of rights that follows, sec. 7 declares
that "the subjects which are Protestant may have arms for
their defence, suitable to their condition and as allowed by
law." This declaration, although it asserts the right of the
Protestants to have arms, does not extend the privilege
beyond the terms provided in the act of Charles II, before
referred to. "They may have arms," says the Parliament,
"suitable to their condition and as allowed by law." The
law, we have seen, only allowed persons of a certain rank to
have arms, and consequently this declaration of right had
reference to such only. It was in reference to these facts,
and to this state of the English law, that the 2d section of
the amendments to the constitution of the United States was
incorporated into that instrument. It declares that, "a
well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of
a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed."

In the same view the section under consideration of our own
bill of rights was adopted.

Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys 154 (Tenn. 1840)


--


Yours truly,

The Lone Weasel

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Kylie dons Hijab - Adult Christian Fashion label launched
    ... >>> one's religions figures NOWHERE on any French ... >> The French Constitution of 1958 and its Amendments ... Public Law of the French ... Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen Adopted by the National ...
    (soc.culture.french)
  • Re: Re: The Sands of Time Do Not Lie...
    ... can pass a law like that with Royal Assent. ... Because it was based on existing amendments and rights. ... There is no right given by the constitution for a state or states to ... Union that united England and Scotland, as the United Kingdom, is the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Sands of Time Do Not Lie...
    ... can pass a law like that with Royal Assent. ... Because it was based on existing amendments and rights. ... There is no right given by the constitution for a state or states to ... Union that united England and Scotland, as the United Kingdom, is the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Anti-Gun Hysteria!
    ... control is Unconstitutional since the Constitution REQUIRES proof ... Constitutional rights have *never* req'd proof, ... One of the rules of constitutional law is that any law (whether a statute, ... No one has even shown that having armed citizens on a plane is not ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: Personal Guns Not Accepted For Militia Duty: Maryland State Archives 1704
    ... Brick: Military expenses and pay to be the responsibility ... Absolutely forbids seizure of arms or ammunition ... English law governing the British Isles proper? ... Queen would have to observe the English Bill of Rights. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)