
|
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:
Huffpo: Self-Defense A ‘Laughable’ Way To Defend Gun Rights
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
Website: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"On Monday, the Huffington Post ran a column arguing that the Constitution is the weakest of all grounds for defending gun rights, and an appeal to self-defense to justify gun ownership is simply 'laughable.'"
"According to the Huffington Post, the Constitutional argument for gun rights is flawed because the 2nd Amendment only protects the rights of persons serving in the militia and, contrary to the Supreme Court’s decision in McDonald v. Chicago, it does not bar states or local governments from regulating firearm ownership." ... |
Comment by:
Millwright66
(1/6/2015)
|
"Self-Defense" is an "inalienable right" ; one of the core concepts of our constitution. The second amendment was written at the insistence of the states in order to further define the prohibitions on government's powers to regulate or constrict the exercise of the "inalienable rights, every citizen is empowered to exercise.
"Offense" is the purview of government, (under strict citizen control), exercised thru Congress. This "control" has featured prominently in several key conflicts between Congress and the White House over the decades.
Small wonder a "anti-gun organ" would countenance another attempt to erode one of the keystones of our freedom. |
|
|
QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908 [by an Indian extremist opposed to Gandhi's agreement with Smuts], whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defend me, I told him it was his duty to defend me even by using violence. Hence it was that I took part in the Boer War, the so-called Zulu Rebellion and [World War I]. Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor. — Mohandas K. Gandhi, Young India, August 11, 1920 from Fischer, Louis ed.,The Essential Gandhi, 1962 |
|
|