|
|
|
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:
Original intent
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
For over 200 years, U.S. courts viewed the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms" as being linked to militia service. That changed in 2008 when Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion in D.C. v. Heller determined that the right of the people delegated in the Second Amendment "unambiguously refers to individual rights, not 'collective' rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body." |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(5/21/2021)
|
This is an unadulterated LIE.
It is, and has ALWAYS BEEN, an individual right. There is NO SUCH THING as a "collective right."
And there have been plenty of court cases in this country's first two hundred years attesting to the individual rights meaning. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(5/21/2021)
|
| When you begin your article with a blatant falsehood, it's obvious that reading further is a total waste of time. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people. — Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697]. |
|
|
