None of the rights say "everyone" has access to them unless you can show otherwise. What the constitution does finish imply it's citizens have the enumerated rights listed within it. But by your reasoning it also doesn't specify who has a right to a gun that's why they can refuse gun ownership to felons.... it also doesn't say everyone has the right to own a gun.
Discuss.
... it also doesn't say everyone has the right to own a gun.
Discuss.
Maybe "the people" doesnt include everyone?That's correct. It says, "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."
Maybe "the people" doesnt include everyone?
The point is Mikey was making and inane argumentThe Constitution itself says, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." - Clearly "the people" doesn't include EVERYONE, since there was significant opposition to the Constitution among some folks.
It's speaking in general terms. Of course back then, "the people" didn't include black Americans.
This assumes "arms" can only refer to muskets, and assuming this doesn't prove it.In theory, the US could pass a federal law outlawing private ownership / possession of all firearms except the musket, and this would still be consistent with the Second Amendment.
Opposition doesn't exclude them from these liberties unless they act to oppose them.The Constitution itself says, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." - Clearly "the people" doesn't include EVERYONE, since there was significant opposition to the Constitution among some folks.
What brings you to this conclusion?It's speaking in general terms. Of course back then, "the people" didn't include black Americans.
Opposition doesn't exclude them from these liberties unless they act to oppose them.
What brings you to this conclusion?
That's one right they didn't have. There were free black men though. Some even owned slaves.The fact that they didn’t have rights. They couldn’t vote.
Only insofar as it related to political representation. They were still viewed as a complete person.They were counted as 3/5 of a person.
False. Slaves have always enjoyed the protections that come with any system that respects private property.They were not protected by the Constitution.
You do know that there were plenty of white slaves as well, right?Slaves had essentially no constitutional rights. They couldn't even testify in court against a white person.
False.Slaves weren't allowed to own guns.
By northern reconstructionists who also had no problem returning escaped and sometimes even freed slaves back to the south.Even after the Civil war in the south, laws were passed
Black slave owners as well as American Indian slave owners had no problem owning guns. The Cherokee even taught their slaves how to hunt using guns.so that blacks (no longer slaves) couldn't own guns.
We're examining how ignorant you really are.They weren't part of the "we the people". Come on. We aren't really discussing this, are we?
You don't have the tools to measure intelligence.We're examining how ignorant you really are.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."... it also doesn't say everyone has the right to own a gun.
Discuss.
The words “well regulated” are right in there, you know…"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Maybe try reading comprehension class.
As a prefatory clause, and a quite different meaning back then than what libs like you want it to mean today.The words “well regulated” are right in there, you know…
I would like it if some coward worried about doing a school shooting because some teachers had a gun in their desk."The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Maybe try reading comprehension class.
Infringe on non musket gun ownership????????In theory, the US could pass a federal law outlawing private ownership / possession of all firearms except the musket, and this would still be consistent with the Second Amendment.
yeah, guns had a “quite different meaning back then,” tooAs a prefatory clause, and a quite different meaning back then than what libs like you want it to mean today.