|
|
|
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 |
| 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]. |
|
|
