|
|
|
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:
'Armed in America' asks exactly what the Founding Fathers intended with the Second Amendment
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Patrick J. Charles doesn’t keep readers in suspense as to his interpretation. In his introduction to Armed in America: A History of Gun Rights from Colonial Militias to Concealed Carry, Mr. Charles states: “the Second Amendment was neither legally intended nor legally understood by the Founding Fathers as protecting a right to armed individual self-defense.”
So there you have it – if you buy into Charles’s detailed exegesis. Charles, a historian and legal scholar, spent almost 10 years digging deeply into the issue of gun rights. And he has written a credible record of what he learned, which led to his conclusions. |
| Comment by:
dasing
(1/27/2018)
|
| And what country is he talking about????????????? |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(1/27/2018)
|
"The right of the people ..." apparently doesn't mean what it says to Patrick J. Charles.
All throughout the Federalist Papers you can find justifications and explanations for what the founders gave us with the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Did Mr. Charles pay any attention? |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
