|
|
|
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:
VA: Focus should be on actual 2nd Amendment
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
We are hearing much about Second Amendment sanctuaries, but we hear little about the Second Amendment itself. A proper understanding of this amendment, complex as it is, would shed a totally different light on the idea of “sanctuaries.”
Historically, the Second Amendment was interpreted by the courts as a collective right, basically supporting the ability of states to raise militias. This changed in 2008, when in a case called Heller v. District of Columbia, the Supreme Court asserted for the first time an individual’s right to bear arms, and invalidated the District’s strong gun control legislation. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(12/27/2019)
|
There was NEVER a collective view of the 2A. It states "the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That means WE, the PEOPLE. THE PEOPLE, who also are protected by the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments. Those are NOT collective rights, they're individual rights.
And so is the Second Amendment. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| There are other things so clearly out of the power of Congress, that the bare recital of them is sufficient, I mean the "...rights of bearing arms for defence, or for killing game..." These things seem to have been inserted among their objections, merely to induce the ignorant to believe that Congress would have a power over such objects and to infer from their being refused a place in the Constitution, their intention to exercise that power to the oppression of the people. —ALEXANDER WHITE (1787) |
|
|
