|
|
|
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:
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(9/26/2019)
|
"The right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
The "we'll regulated militia ...." clause is an exemplar, and while NOT unimportant, does not state anything about the right or who owns it, or how the government must relate to it. |
| Comment by:
lbauer
(9/26/2019)
|
It seems obvious to me that the militia clause was attached to the Second Amendment explicitly to enable the government to REQUIRE members of the militia, who at the time were all able bodied males between 16 and 45 not otherwise serving in the government, to own and maintain such arms as would be required in a militia muster.
To the best of my knowledge that definition of militia still holds today though should be expanded to all citizens whether male or female. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. — James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]. |
|
|
