|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Revisiting the Second Amendment
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
It was not conceived as a right for individuals to bear arms. (Please keep in mind that we’re also talking about muskets in 1787, not god damn AR-15’s.) It was not to protect citizens from international threats. The Second Amendment was created to protect Americans from their own government in the form of “well-regulated militias” or an organized military force formed from “the civil population.” |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(7/30/2016)
|
"It was not conceived as a right for individuals to bear arms."
Yes it was. "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE..." There it is, THAT'S who owns the right. WE THE PEOPLE.
I don't get this....the 2A WAS designed so we could protect ourselves from a tyrannical govt.
I think the author is schizophrenic. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(7/30/2016)
|
Revisiting the Second Amendment?
Why?
It still says what it has always said. |
| Comment by:
Sosalty
(7/30/2016)
|
| An armed population is a civil population. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
