|
|
|
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:
Let’s rethink Second Amendment ‘rights’
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
Website: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"One would think that God gave us the Second Amendment. Every single political debate on gun control is prefaced by some variation of 'I believe in our Second Amendment rights' right up there with the Bible and Jesus."
"Spouting this poppycock is a necessary prerequisite to entering a debate on the subject. It is also a practical necessity for any politician running for office."
"The Second Amendment does plainly state that, 'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The Supreme Court has consistently ignored that modifying phrase beginning, 'A well-maintained militia being necessary;' so,we have been saddled with the interpretation that anyone can have any weapon her or she wants." ... |
| Comment by:
jac
(2/16/2015)
|
| Actually, the second amendment did not give us any rights. It only clarified that the new federal government did not have any power to take away the God given right of self defense. This is something that the liberals simply ignore when demanding more gun control. |
| Comment by:
jac
(2/16/2015)
|
| I should also add, that in spite of the second amendment, the federal government has done a pretty good job of restricting our gun rights. |
| Comment by:
teebonicus
(2/16/2015)
|
And, jac, the Supreme Court weighed in on your first point 'way back in 1875, in U.S. v. Cruikshank:
"The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose. This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." |
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
