|
|
|
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:
MN: 2nd Amendment originally protected slavery
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Being a gun owner but skeptical about such explanations, I wanted to be more informed before responding. I found Thom Hartmann's book, "The Hidden History of Guns and the Second Amendment." It cites historical references, including records of the states’ conventions when they considered adopting the Constitution following the General Convention in 1787. It shows that the framers of the Constitution didn't consider defense of oneself or for "hearth and home," overthrowing a tyrannical government, or repelling invaders as reasons for the Second Amendment. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(9/12/2019)
|
Idiot!
The founders left documents explaining their reasoning. Read THE FEDERALIST PAPERS or even THE ANTIFEDERALIST PAPERS.
The best succinct explanation for why the WA was written is IN the 2A itself; the "well regulated militia being necessary" for the preservation of "a free state." State, as in "condition," (which can be good) not "state" as in "California" --- which is not good.
This is not a hard thing to suss out.
|
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(9/12/2019)
|
| Yeah. An'an'an' the country was founded in 1619 on the backs of slaves, too! [I think I just threw up a little in my mouth....] |
|
|
| 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]. |
|
|
