|
|
|
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:
MD: Second amendment
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
What Mr. Johnson doesn't understand is that the Second Amendment was really adopted as a defense against tyranny whether it be imposed through the force of a standing army or otherwise. The Second Amendment was not about protecting militias as he asserts, it was (and is) more properly about protecting the People (the militias are the People).
If the existence of standing armies was feared then, is it not logical to conclude that the Second Amendment is now all the more important with today's standing army being the instrument of the federal government?
Ed.: Second letter. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(6/7/2019)
|
| Sorry, Jesse. You're not ALLOWED to be right. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| As an individual, I believe, very strongly, that handguns should be banned and that there should be stringent, effective control of other firearms. However, as a judge, I know full well that the question of whether handguns can be sold is a political one, not an issue of products liability law, and that this is a matter for the legislatures, not the courts. The unconventional theories advanced in this case (and others) are totally without merit, a misuse of products liability laws. — Judge Buchmeyer, Patterson v. Gesellschaft, 1206 F.Supp. 1206, 1216 (N.D. Tex. 1985) |
|
|
