|
|
|
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:
Mr. Trump's Second Amendment
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The Second Amendment’s true purpose is to guarantee Americans the right—and to insure for them the ability to perform the duty—to defend their communities, to the end of securing “a free State” at every level of the federal system throughout this country. Ultimately, the Second Amendment provides for the perpetuation of those “well regulated Militia” which it declares to be “necessary to the security of a free State”. Mere individuals and families—as isolated individuals and families—cannot possibly succeed through individual self-defense in thwarting the kinds of threats most likely to endanger “the security of a free State”. |
| Comment by:
dasing
(11/25/2016)
|
| If the author wishes to ignore the founders reasons for wording the 2A the way they did, he can make any asinine conclusions that he does, he is a tool of the tyranical government. |
| Comment by:
Sosalty
(11/25/2016)
|
| Just the fact that we have an armed populace, has historically up to present day been a preventive of the feds overstepping their authority. Without the 2nd and an armed populace, we'd already would be living under a truly tyrannical dictator. Without a single shot being fired for this purpose. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(11/25/2016)
|
"Mere individuals and families—as isolated individuals and families—cannot possibly succeed through individual self-defense in thwarting the kinds of threats most likely to endanger 'the security of a free State'."
So what?
So then we arrive at yet another twisted argument that "the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms ..." is, in "reality," NOT an individual right, but the old degenerate "collective" right of a "group."
No country HAS EVER raised an army and refused them weapons, since for soldiers weapons are needed. Even Hitler armed his military.
No one debates arming soldiers.
The second amendment protects the right of THE PEOPLE.
That's US. "WE, THE PEOPLE." |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
