|
|
|
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:
Parsing the Second Amendment
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The Second Amendment runs thus (I have modernized the punctuation and capitalization): “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” I offer a modern translation: “Because the armed forces are necessary to the security of a free state, the people’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” One should insert the language “in the service of the state” to drive home the point that the United States, having by now established a well-regulated military, is no longer dependent on state militias, as it was when the Bill of Rights was written. |
| Comment by:
dasing
(7/2/2016)
|
Because of the standing army, that is even more reason the several States need militias, to protect against Fed oppression. Also, the 2A did NOT state that standing army was nesessary, in fact they set up the constitution to prevent select militias (national guard) and standing armys (army and air force, also the coast guard). The only protective force allowed on a continuating basis is the Navy.
|
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. — James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]. |
|
|
