|
|
|
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:
MO: Determining what the Second Amendment means for today
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
As a strict constructionist, I would like to advocate for the intent of the writers of this article.
Seems to me that those who keep and bear arms ought to be enrolled in a well regulated militia, currently known as the National Guard or the military reserve. These citizens would be trained and ready should our nation require their services when we are threatened by Native Americans or forces of the British, French or Spanish governments. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(7/15/2017)
|
*SIGH!* Another ignoramus who thinks that the right to keep & bear arms applies only to an organized force.
It's "the right of the people," not a right of the collective.
Doesn't "the right of the PEOPLE" mean anything? |
| Comment by:
shootergdv
(7/16/2017)
|
| A strict constructionist should realize that well regulated at the time meant well trained ! And note that the National Guard is now controlled by the Federal government, and is NOT the militia envisioned by those old dead white guys. |
| Comment by:
dasing
(7/18/2017)
|
| The national guard is a SELECT militia, NOT THE MILITIA!!! |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
