|
|
|
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 |
| 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) |
|
|
