|
|
|
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:
NY: Second Amendment explained for the masses
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect the ability of each state to call up its army. It precludes the new central government from disarming the people of the state. It was not intended by its framers, its framers being the states, to prevent the states from regulating firearms or to frustrate each state’s normal police powers to protect the health and safety of their communities.
An individual’s right to bear arms, to the extent such a right exists, may be based on historical precedent or traditional usage or state law, which precedent or usage or state law can be recognized and upheld by the central government. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(12/24/2021)
|
Condescending legerdemain.
As was pointed out in commentary, the right is grammatically isolated in the operative clause, which is in and of itself a full sentence:
"The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
The amendment specifically brushes aside the 'collective right' argument by its very structure. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
