|
|
|
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:
RI: A primer on the Second Amendment
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Michael F. Kraemer is a retired Rhode Island attorney and a volunteer with the Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence who has testified before the judiciary committees of the Rhode Island House and Senate.
The right to bear arms established under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is often misunderstood. Given the proposed firearms legislation pending in the General Assembly, it is important to understand what the law does and does not protect. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(3/4/2021)
|
| For a lawyer this author just does not have a clue. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/4/2021)
|
Well, he starts off with a blatant lie.
"The Court did not establish any other right regarding gun ownership, beyond 'the right ... to use arms in defense of hearth and home.'"
What an arrogant piece of nonsense!
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
Let me repeat that: "...to use that arm FOR TRADITIONALLY LAWFUL PURPUSES, SUCH AS self-defense within the home." (emphasis mine)
The author's 'interpretation' doesn't merely distort the precedent, it unconscionably misrepresents it. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908 [by an Indian extremist opposed to Gandhi's agreement with Smuts], whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defend me, I told him it was his duty to defend me even by using violence. Hence it was that I took part in the Boer War, the so-called Zulu Rebellion and [World War I]. Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor. — Mohandas K. Gandhi, Young India, August 11, 1920 from Fischer, Louis ed.,The Essential Gandhi, 1962 |
|
|
