|
|
|
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:
Baltimore Sun: Individual Right To Keep, Bear Arms Created in 2008
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
On August 7, the Baltimore Sun ran a column ubiquitously examining the chasm between Americans who arm themselves for self-defense and Americans who do not. But on a deeper level, the column asserted that the meaning of the Second Amendment has been “in dispute” for “most of the nation’s history” and only came to be viewed as a protection of individual rights after the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).
This is the same argument that the LA Times put forth on May 22 and one which The New York Times as also been peddling since the Heller decision came down. |
| Comment by:
mickey
(8/8/2015)
|
| ...because the People in the 2A aren't the same People that are mentioned in the rest of the Constitution, and none of the 2A decisions in the first 150 years of our nation's history ever happened. |
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(8/8/2015)
|
| An "allegation" which conveniently managed to avoid mentioning two hundred plus years of american history and court decisions ! |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
