|
|
|
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 Gun Control Debate: A Brief History
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
For the nearly two hundred years after its approval as an amendment to the United States Constitution, few sentences in the Bill of Rights caused less controversy. Few courts and fewer legal scholars paid any attention to the Second Amendment to the Constitution. How that changed is a fascinating and uniquely American story that brings together the Black Panthers, Ronald Reagan, a civil war within the NRA, and gun regulations in Washington D.C. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(10/19/2018)
|
The author is still piping the false meme of US v. Miller.
In Miller, the Court assumed arguendo that the defendant had an individual right to bear arms. It ignored the gov'ts argument that the 2A only guaranteed a collective right and went straight to type of weapon at issue. In doing so, it set the criteria for what arms are "protected" - in common use, had militia utility, could contribute to the common defense or were "any part of the ordinary military equipment." It ruled that Miller's shotgun was not protected, and it closed with the dictat that the 2A must be applied using the criteria it had set forth.
But don't hold your breath waiting for the left-leaning legal profession to admit it. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908 [by an Indian extremist opposed to Gandhi's agreement with Smuts], whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defend me, I told him it was his duty to defend me even by using violence. Hence it was that I took part in the Boer War, the so-called Zulu Rebellion and [World War I]. Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor. — Mohandas K. Gandhi, Young India, August 11, 1920 from Fischer, Louis ed.,The Essential Gandhi, 1962 |
|
|
