Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

jimmy the one

(2,717 posts)
29. get new glasses
Tue Nov 17, 2015, 10:31 AM
Nov 2015

teddyR: .. when you quote the Pennsylvania constitution you COMPLETELY ignore that it states the right of the people to bear arms "in defence of themselves and the State," because that language disrupts your narrative.

No I did not 'completely ignore' the pennsylvania quote including 'in defence of themselves & the state' - I noted it twice in the very post you replied to, either get new glasses or do remedial english comprehension:

I wrote in post 24: Would somebody email & explain to teddyR what 'the State' means. Pennsy's rkba in 1790 was militia centric.
Observe original rkba's circa 1776 - 1784, where 6 of the 8 were limited to common defense (militia), and the other 2 were militia centric (rkba for both self & state).

Further, inclusion of 'in defence of themselves and the state' does not disrupt my narrative. It disrupts yours, since it includes defending the state as militia, and not, as scalia ruled, an individual rkba disconnected from militia service.

teddyR cites early state rkba provisions: Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. (1818).
Alabama: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. (1819).
Michigan: "Every person has a right to bear arms for the defence of himself and the State." (1835)


Obviously restricted any self defence rkba to males, & actually restricted to WHITE ADULT males, comprising about 25% of a state's total population (less for states with greater slave populations).

2nd Amendment showerthought... [View all] Kang Colby Nov 2015 OP
I know people like their guns itsrobert Nov 2015 #1
Actually... Kang Colby Nov 2015 #2
Don't spoil other people's romantic moments.... FSogol Nov 2015 #5
Well, some controllers say the best thing to do with explosive diarrhea... Eleanors38 Nov 2015 #6
What are arms? JonathanRackham Nov 2015 #26
history jimmy the one Nov 2015 #3
You forgot TeddyR Nov 2015 #10
arbitrary power of posters jimmy the one Nov 2015 #22
Actually TeddyR Nov 2015 #27
You are excluding a mountain of case law. (Verdugo-Urquidez, Emerson, etc.) Kang Colby Nov 2015 #19
This ^^^ beevul Nov 2015 #20
Very good post TeddyR Nov 2015 #21
pennsy minority rkba report jimmy the one Nov 2015 #24
Setting aside everything else that is wrong about your post TeddyR Nov 2015 #28
get new glasses jimmy the one Nov 2015 #29
sam adams proposal was withdrawn jimmy the one Nov 2015 #30
don't feel bad for us jimmy the one Nov 2015 #23
Your argument boils down to Kang Colby Nov 2015 #31
state constitutional rkba's jimmy the one Nov 2015 #25
The 2A. deathrind Nov 2015 #4
Re-read the Fourth. Eleanors38 Nov 2015 #7
The 4th. deathrind Nov 2015 #12
They seem to have equated them both in the same sentence. Eleanors38 Nov 2015 #13
Right off the top of my head one issue I have with your interpretation TeddyR Nov 2015 #17
The Second Amendment TeddyR Nov 2015 #8
There is a clear difference between the 4th and the 2nd. deathrind Nov 2015 #11
Thanks for the response and link TeddyR Nov 2015 #16
The 2nd was intended to do 1 thing - ensure the effectiveness of the Militias of the several States. jmg257 Nov 2015 #9
The right to own firearms should be understood at a primary part of natural law. ileus Nov 2015 #14
One small correction. branford Nov 2015 #15
There's a good bit of scholarly work that supports exactly that interpretation TeddyR Nov 2015 #18
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»2nd Amendment showerthoug...»Reply #29