|
|
|
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:
Let’s rethink Second Amendment ‘rights’
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
Website: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"One would think that God gave us the Second Amendment. Every single political debate on gun control is prefaced by some variation of 'I believe in our Second Amendment rights' right up there with the Bible and Jesus."
"Spouting this poppycock is a necessary prerequisite to entering a debate on the subject. It is also a practical necessity for any politician running for office."
"The Second Amendment does plainly state that, 'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The Supreme Court has consistently ignored that modifying phrase beginning, 'A well-maintained militia being necessary;' so,we have been saddled with the interpretation that anyone can have any weapon her or she wants." ... |
| Comment by:
jac
(2/16/2015)
|
| Actually, the second amendment did not give us any rights. It only clarified that the new federal government did not have any power to take away the God given right of self defense. This is something that the liberals simply ignore when demanding more gun control. |
| Comment by:
jac
(2/16/2015)
|
| I should also add, that in spite of the second amendment, the federal government has done a pretty good job of restricting our gun rights. |
| Comment by:
teebonicus
(2/16/2015)
|
And, jac, the Supreme Court weighed in on your first point 'way back in 1875, in U.S. v. Cruikshank:
"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." |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| There are other things so clearly out of the power of Congress, that the bare recital of them is sufficient, I mean the "...rights of bearing arms for defence, or for killing game..." These things seem to have been inserted among their objections, merely to induce the ignorant to believe that Congress would have a power over such objects and to infer from their being refused a place in the Constitution, their intention to exercise that power to the oppression of the people. —ALEXANDER WHITE (1787) |
|
|
