|
|
|
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:
Does the Second Amendment Protect Laser Guns?
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Scalia’s written opinion argued that our interpretation of what constitutes “arms” can be no different than what the Founding Fathers intended. “The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today,” Scalia wrote. “The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.” No matter that the weapons of today do not resemble the weapons of yore: Scalia argued that we cannot pick and choose which constitutional rights remain applicable in modern times and which do not. |
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(4/7/2016)
|
| Our forefathers wisely didn't delineate "arms" in the Second Amendment, so there's no limitation or constitutional restriction upon how citizens choose to arm themselves. It is of historical note- if one wants to make the argument - citizens generally had personal arms superior to the armies arrayed against them. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
