|
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:
UT: The history of the Second Amendment
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
When the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, we should remember that a musket could fire one to three or four rounds per minute, requiring the gunman to stop between each shot and reload gunpowder, add a patch and a ball, use the ramrod to clean the barrel, and then seat the round bullet properly. Oh, and fill the flashpan with gunpowder. There was no standing army. The amendment reads, “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” |
Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(11/26/2020)
|
Too bad the Heller case stipulated that the 2A does cover modern firearms as well.
The 1st Amendment covers radio, tv, Internet and modern communication devices. As weapons technologies progressed, new weapons also became protected.
The Winchester repeater was the "assault rifle" of the 19th century. It was protected, just as is the AR-15 is in today's world.
And this business about associating the WA with slavery is a bunch of stiersheisse. |
Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(11/26/2020)
|
"WA" should read 2A. I hate fat fingers!!!!!! ! |
|
|
QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
You are bound to meet misfortune if you are unarmed because, among other reasons, people despise you....There is simply no comparison between a man who is armed and one who is not. It is unreasonable to expect that an armed man should obey one who is unarmed, or that an unarmed man should remain safe and secure when his servants are armed. In the latter case, there will be suspicion on the one hand and contempt on the other, making cooperation impossible. — Niccolo Machiavelli in "The Prince." |
|
|