|
|
|
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 Does ‘Well Regulated’ Really Mean?
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
But the power and absolutism commonly associated with the Second Amendment doesn’t seem to sway the skepticism espoused by two influential former U.S. Supreme Court justices.
On the Tuesday following the “March for Our Lives” rally on March 24 in Washington, former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, writing an eight-paragraph commentary for the New York Times, argued that students and pro gun-control protesters should seek a repeal of the Second Amendme |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(4/12/2018)
|
This question is a straw man that just won’t go away.
Grammatically, in that sentence the phrase “well regulated” modifies the noun “militia”, not the noun “right” nor the noun “people”. They aren’t even in the same clause.
Therefore the perpetual attempt to apply that modifier to the right fails grammatically, and is a specious effort to undermine the true meaning and public understanding of the amendment for ideological reasons. |
| Comment by:
lbauer
(4/12/2018)
|
| The purpose of the founders as authors of our Constitution is perfectly clear to anyone who bothers to learn the common tongue of the day. Well regulated simply means well equipped. The militia clause was inserted into the Second Amendment to provide the new government the authority to require citizens to own and maintain arms necessary should a call for the unorganized militia become necessary. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
