|
|
|
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:
Revisiting the Second Amendment
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
It was not conceived as a right for individuals to bear arms. (Please keep in mind that we’re also talking about muskets in 1787, not god damn AR-15’s.) It was not to protect citizens from international threats. The Second Amendment was created to protect Americans from their own government in the form of “well-regulated militias” or an organized military force formed from “the civil population.” |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(7/30/2016)
|
"It was not conceived as a right for individuals to bear arms."
Yes it was. "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE..." There it is, THAT'S who owns the right. WE THE PEOPLE.
I don't get this....the 2A WAS designed so we could protect ourselves from a tyrannical govt.
I think the author is schizophrenic. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(7/30/2016)
|
Revisiting the Second Amendment?
Why?
It still says what it has always said. |
| Comment by:
Sosalty
(7/30/2016)
|
| An armed population is a civil population. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| As an individual, I believe, very strongly, that handguns should be banned and that there should be stringent, effective control of other firearms. However, as a judge, I know full well that the question of whether handguns can be sold is a political one, not an issue of products liability law, and that this is a matter for the legislatures, not the courts. The unconventional theories advanced in this case (and others) are totally without merit, a misuse of products liability laws. — Judge Buchmeyer, Patterson v. Gesellschaft, 1206 F.Supp. 1206, 1216 (N.D. Tex. 1985) |
|
|
