|
|
|
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:
The need for self defense
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
With the continuing debate over the 2nd Amendment, I feel it is necessary to look to the past for a lesson on what happens when people have no means of self defense. In the latter part of the Roman Empire, the people had been disarmed by law as the emperors sought to control every aspect of life.
In 455 A.D. the Vandals, a Germanic tribe, from where we get our term for wanton destruction, invaded Italy and sacked the city of Rome. There were not enough soldiers to protect the people from the depredations of the Vandals ,and having no means of defending themselves, they were brutalized and plundered without mercy. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(5/2/2019)
|
| Today we have them coming in through the southern border. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
