|
|
|
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 |
| No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. — James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]. |
|
|
