|
|
|
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:
Gun Rights Defenders Misread The Second Amendment
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://keepandbeararms.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Recent letters from Thomas Denton ( July 3: "Banning 'assault weapons' would only be first step") and Phil Gingerella (July 14: "Democrats want to disarm law-abiding citizens") claim that the Founding Fathers' primary purpose in establishing the Second Amendment was to provide the people with the means to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. This is far from accurate.
|
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(7/26/2016)
|
Yes the purpose of the militia was to repel invasions and suppress insurrections .... it was intended as a "first responder," to be relieved by (or adjuncted to) the U.S. Army when it arrived.
But it was also intended to protect the rights of the people to remain armed with the "deadliest implements of the soldier" in case the government devolved into tyranny.
And.....240 years later .... we may indeed be watching THAT happen.
Keep your powder dry ...... |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
