|
|
|
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:
ME: Second Amendment deserves a closer look
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Most of the communications I receive press their message in the third and fourth phrases and ignore the first two phrases. This, to me, is a totally biased viewpoint and, in my estimation, calls for some kind of action, possibly another amendment. In any event, it should at least give us the freedom to regulate gun ownership in whatever manner is deemed necessary. |
| Comment by:
teebonicus
(6/27/2015)
|
No comments section for that article, so....
First, the 2A has only two clauses and one comma. That is the version submitted for ratification, and is in fact the version that was ratified.
That said, the opening phrase is a dependent clause. The declaration of the right is an independent clause. Dependent clauses "depend" on independent clauses for their context, not the reverse, hence; "dependent clauses".
DUH.
As well, the 2A is a guarantee, not a right-generator.
"The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." - U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) 92 U.S. 542
Wadda dimwit.
|
| Comment by:
jac
(6/28/2015)
|
| These people think they know it all. They don't care about facts. |
|
|
