|
|
|
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:
This November, Reward Candidates Who Fail the NRA's Test
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://constitutionnetwork.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The only amendment in the Bill of Rights that literally includes the word "regulated" within its very text is the Second. Yet strangely, the NRA and other gun extremists think the right to bear arms is the only one among the Bill of Rights, adopted in 1791, that should be totally un-regulated. A fellow journalist whose work I admire recently educated me about 18th-century usage of the word "regulated." According to him, the words "well regulated" in the Second Amendment are a reference to supply. In that context, he explained, the Framers were saying that militias should be “well supplied” with guns and ammunition.
|
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(6/13/2018)
|
I hate this ignorant jack-assery.
"Well regulated" does NOT mean that the government gets to ban any particular gun, or even pass any laws at all with regards to firearms. The phrase means a WELL TRAINED, WELL ORGANIZED militia. The founders learned through their experience that training, discipline and organization were very important in a militia if it were to function as an effective force.
That is all it means.
It is NOT a license for the government to do what the second clause in the 2A forbids. |
|
|
| 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]. |
|
|
