|
|
|
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:
There Is No Constitutional Right to Bear Arms
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
If one reads only the last 14 words of this sentence, it seems to unambiguously affirm the right of citizens to gun ownership. But that’s not what the sentence as a whole states. The 16 words that precede them limits such ownership to a single purpose, namely participation in a “well regulated Militia.” This phrase, subtended by its intended purpose, means participation in a state-authorized force for the protection and preservation of the Commonwealth. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(4/17/2021)
|
Where have you been, in Kalifornia?
Since other worthy commenters have exhaustively dissected your poopstink, I'll limit my response to the most basic and obvious.
Grammatically, the prefatory (subordinate) clause merely announces the purpose for putting the guarantee in writing. The operative (independent) clause assumes a preexisting right of the people, not of the states, and declares that it shall not be infringed.
"Because of THIS, we are guaranteeing THAT."
THIS ≠ THAT
They are two different, distinct things. The militia doesn't create the right, the people endowed with the right create the militia.
Rinse and repeat, until your brainwashing evaporates. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(4/17/2021)
|
Funny, my edition of the U. S. Constitution has the second amendment, which clearly states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Linking the right to militia service is erroneous. "Shall not be infringed" means the govt. cannot either intrude into the inalienable right, or diminish said right, to possess and carry arms.
Heller vs. D. C. got one thing right, it said the right was distinct from militia service. That was always the case ... but as of Heller, there simply no reason for people to get it wrong.
Unless, of course, they want to ..... |
| Comment by:
shootergdv
(4/18/2021)
|
| The "well regulated(as in trained)" militia is all citizens ! |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
