|
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:
WA: The Second Amendment is not about guns
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 4 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The term keep and bear arms in the 18th century did not mean storing a weapon in your home or carrying it around on your person. The term meant that one could serve in the Militia, in 21st century terms, be a part of the military. Bearing arms was about fighting in the army or navy. Thus what the framers were talking about was not preventing persons serving in the military.
In 21st century language the Second Amendment would read: “A trained and disciplined armed force is necessary to the security of a free State; therefore persons who choose to be part of that armed force shall not be prevented from serving.” |
Comment by:
Sosalty
(3/4/2017)
|
Liberal tripe. Your neighbors were the militia, ready to respond to a minute man messenger on horseback in short notice, thus their name "minute' men." |
Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(3/4/2017)
|
It's a letter to an editor by yet another ignoramus who does not understand what "the right of the people" means. Nothing really to see here other than yet one more example of our crumbling ejumakashun system. |
Comment by:
dasing
(3/4/2017)
|
2A is not about guns, it is about arms, all arms used in war or any arms used at home. Some of the ****had cannons at home , also! |
Comment by:
laker1
(3/4/2017)
|
Its a self evident truth that this person has brain damage and should be added to the gun ban list. I am sure that he would agree that a brain damaged person should not buy a gun. |
|
|
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) |
|
|