|
|
|
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:
Interpreting the Second Amendment with Richard Martinez
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
At the National Rifle Association’s annual convention in Nashville, we caught up with Richard Martinez, a spokesman with the gun control advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety. The group protested the NRA show as well as pending legislation in Tennessee. But we asked him about the big ideas that govern his process — just as we did with presidential hopeful Ted Cruz.
“The Second Amendment says you have the right to bear arms —nobody interprets that to give you the right to have a tank or a machine gun or an atomic bomb. Why? Because it’s not reasonable,” Martinez said, responding to Cruz’s advocacy of loosening gun regulations.
|
| Comment by:
xqqme
(5/16/2015)
|
Without the right to those "other" arms, what good would a "Letter of Marque", something specifically authorized by the Constitution as being granted to citizens, be?
"Arms" for the citizens includes each and every one of the "arms" described in various "arms control" treaties between the US Gov't and foreign nations. |
| Comment by:
laker1
(5/16/2015)
|
Keep-that means I own it and you can't have it.
Bear-that means I have it right here on me and its loaded. Nothing about infringing further on this right of the people. Weapons of used by the military soldier are weapons that the civilian militia(the people) can be used to defend against an oppressive government. |
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(5/16/2015)
|
Our Founding Fathers wisely opted not delimit "arms", leaving it to the nation's citizens to select arms most suitable to their situation and resources. In practice, in their era, rifles and edged weapons were universal to light infantry units. Even then the British complained the Colonials had 'unfair advantage' with their rifled weapons.
Today, our citizens still have weapons similar to current light infantry. And, yes Mr. Martinez, we also have machine guns and tanks - and mini-guns, and cannon and 'sniper weapons - as well. They don't threaten you.
Better to turn your talents to keeping known violent perps/gangs safely incarcerated rather than render their prospective victims helpless. |
|
|
| 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]. |
|
|
