|
|
|
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:
What the Second Amendment Really Says
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
No one should ever die because someone feels entitled to pull a trigger. However, it seems that every day on the streets of Baltimore someone exercises his entitlement (if you own a gun you are entitled to operate it which includes pulling its trigger). An entitlement many say is granted by the Second Amendment. But did it really? The Second Amendment reads, “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed.” |
| Comment by:
dasing
(11/7/2017)
|
| This, talking head, should learn why 2A was worded the way it was. The NG is a SELECT militia, and the Militia in the 2A is the whole of able-bodied men, either 16 to 60, or 18 to 80, depending which camp was talking ! That means any one able to have and use a firearm should have one and carry it!!!! |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(11/7/2017)
|
This common liberal "group right" interpretation is just painfully wrong.
First, it creates a "logic error" called "denying the antecedent." That's the second part, the "right of the people to K&B arms shall not be infringed." That means what itr says; the first part, also an EXEMPLAR, does NOT negate the meaning in the antecedent.
Every country arms its military, even those that deny their citizens the right to have guns.
The 2A was clearly intended to protect the right OF THE PEOPLE (as THAT IS WHAT IT SAYS....is THAT so HARD to understand?? I guess if you are a libtard, it is). |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
