|
|
|
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:
CA: Second Amendment was enacted to protect whites
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
In the late 1700s the southern states had a lot of political clout due to their great economy on the backs of slaves. They refused to ratify the Bill of Rights unless the Second Amendment was adopted.
Why? If we were taught the truth behind this amendment, we’d know that its purpose was for all white men, from the ages of 18 to 45, to have a gun in order to protect them from all non whites (Blacks and American Indians), from slavery rebellions, and to round up escaped slaves.
These “well regulated” militias were not well organized or under any specific rules or guidance. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(7/9/2021)
|
Utter stier-scheisse!
If the author would do actual research in actual history books the author would be able to write real history. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(7/9/2021)
|
One-word answer:
STOOPID. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people. — Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697]. |
|
|
