|
|
|
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:
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(5/11/2020)
|
The author wrote:
"With regard to the right to bear arms, the Second Amendment could, at least in theory, be abolished. On the contrary, prior to lawfully suspending the right to produce income to survive, the government would have to first repeal the 'Laws of Nature and of Nature's God.'"
The right of survival pursuant to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." isn't limited to "the right to produce income to survive." Working to provide sustenance for survival is not a superior right to self-defense (i.e. to bear arms), they are two of several in the first tier of natural righs, and as the Court said in U.S. v. Cruikshank, the right to arms is not dependent upon the Second Amendment for its existence. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
