|
|
|
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:
Interpreting the Second Amendment with Richard Martinez
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
At the National Rifle Association’s annual convention in Nashville, we caught up with Richard Martinez, a spokesman with the gun control advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety. The group protested the NRA show as well as pending legislation in Tennessee. But we asked him about the big ideas that govern his process — just as we did with presidential hopeful Ted Cruz.
“The Second Amendment says you have the right to bear arms —nobody interprets that to give you the right to have a tank or a machine gun or an atomic bomb. Why? Because it’s not reasonable,” Martinez said, responding to Cruz’s advocacy of loosening gun regulations.
|
| Comment by:
xqqme
(5/16/2015)
|
Without the right to those "other" arms, what good would a "Letter of Marque", something specifically authorized by the Constitution as being granted to citizens, be?
"Arms" for the citizens includes each and every one of the "arms" described in various "arms control" treaties between the US Gov't and foreign nations. |
| Comment by:
laker1
(5/16/2015)
|
Keep-that means I own it and you can't have it.
Bear-that means I have it right here on me and its loaded. Nothing about infringing further on this right of the people. Weapons of used by the military soldier are weapons that the civilian militia(the people) can be used to defend against an oppressive government. |
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(5/16/2015)
|
Our Founding Fathers wisely opted not delimit "arms", leaving it to the nation's citizens to select arms most suitable to their situation and resources. In practice, in their era, rifles and edged weapons were universal to light infantry units. Even then the British complained the Colonials had 'unfair advantage' with their rifled weapons.
Today, our citizens still have weapons similar to current light infantry. And, yes Mr. Martinez, we also have machine guns and tanks - and mini-guns, and cannon and 'sniper weapons - as well. They don't threaten you.
Better to turn your talents to keeping known violent perps/gangs safely incarcerated rather than render their prospective victims helpless. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908 [by an Indian extremist opposed to Gandhi's agreement with Smuts], whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defend me, I told him it was his duty to defend me even by using violence. Hence it was that I took part in the Boer War, the so-called Zulu Rebellion and [World War I]. Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor. — Mohandas K. Gandhi, Young India, August 11, 1920 from Fischer, Louis ed.,The Essential Gandhi, 1962 |
|
|
