|
|
|
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:
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(5/11/2020)
|
The author wrote:
"With regard to the right to bear arms, the Second Amendment could, at least in theory, be abolished. On the contrary, prior to lawfully suspending the right to produce income to survive, the government would have to first repeal the 'Laws of Nature and of Nature's God.'"
The right of survival pursuant to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." isn't limited to "the right to produce income to survive." Working to provide sustenance for survival is not a superior right to self-defense (i.e. to bear arms), they are two of several in the first tier of natural righs, and as the Court said in U.S. v. Cruikshank, the right to arms is not dependent upon the Second Amendment for its existence. |
|
|
| 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]. |
|
|
