|
|
|
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:
MD: Second Amendment (third letter)
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
Website: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"Godfrey R. Gauld (The Capital, Aug. 25) makes a strong case for arms as a natural right and as the 'foundation upon which all other rights are based.' And the extent to which our elected representatives flail away at this fundamental right should alarm us."
"From this argument one draws the conclusion that each of the Earth's other free nations would have its own equivalent of our Second Amendment. And if they do not, then their citizens are, somehow, less 'free' than ours." ... |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(9/1/2015)
|
Dear Arnold:
You are thinking it to death. This nation was founded upon the precept that all humans are endowed by their Creator with fundamental, unalienable rights.
Unalienable. Rights.
End of discussion. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people. — Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697]. |
|
|
