|
|
|
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:
The Second Amendment: How Does It Work? Progressives Have No Idea
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
I genuinely want to be done with defending the Second Amendment from the regular barrage of its historically illiterate and inept detractors—the people who say this amendment protects only the “right” of the “militia” to own weapons.
One friend and fellow gun rights activist said it’s best to just ignore such people, in the same way that you might ignore people who say triangles have four sides or that the Sun orbits the Earth. It is tempting to just stop engaging the dopes who simply refuse to consider basic, objective historical facts. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(8/19/2016)
|
There is a glaring omission from this article.
The author sets about debunking a ridiculous parsing of the Second Amendment, but his effort would be completely unnecessary if he made this one point:
The Second Amendment, as submitted to the states, ratified by the states, verified and posted by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, HAD ONLY ONE COMMA.
IOW, the superfluous 1st and 3rd commas generate the mischief the author arduously labors to dismantle, and if he merely stressed the "one comma" fact, such mischief would become moot.
Nobody knows who inserted those two commas, but the purpose for doing so is apparent - to equate "A well-regulated militia" with the "right of the people".
We need to address this, once and for all. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
