|
|
|
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:
Myth: Second Amendment protects individual liberties
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
In each instance, armed protesters used the Second Amendment to undermine democracy and individual rights. Democratically elected bodies in Virginia and Michigan were effectively threatened if they choose to act on measures — gun control and an extension of lockdown orders — that had wide public support. When citizens descend on a state capital brandishing guns, they effectively end any commitment to democratic debate. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(6/12/2020)
|
Meandering bunch of confused ineffable twaddle.
Author conflates southern states' concerns over slave rebellions with the well known origins of the 2A. And she's a PHD!! !
"PHD" can also mean "piled high and deep."
I guess that applies here!!!! |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(6/12/2020)
|
Whether or not the militia would be effective (a condition placed upon the right by the author) is immaterial. The right exists, and we have it, and it is unalienable.
"The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose'. This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." - U.S .v Cruikshank (1875)
|
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
