|
|
|
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:
Why Not Try to Amend the Second Amendment?
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The Virginia Beach massacre again raises the question of why the United States can’t do more to combat mass murderers wielding guns. It can — but only by amending the Second Amendment. Gun-control advocates often appear to bemoan the Second Amendment’s very existence. They note how different guns were in the late 18th century, when it took nearly a minute to load rifles with a single bullet. They observe that the amendment itself points to the need for a “well-regulated militia,” suggesting that the right to own and use guns is subordinate to the need for collective self-defense. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(6/4/2019)
|
1.) "Minutemen" could load, aim, and accurately fire three rounds a minute, not one.
2.) The second amendment DOES NOT subordinate the right to keep & bear arms to the needs of a collective defense, it states "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE" which means individual American Citizens. The militia clause neither modifies or limits the right; "shall not be infringed" means it actually CANNOT be limited, diminished, or intruded upon.
It would be nice if these clueless dweebs would do a little research. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(6/4/2019)
|
Mark -
Additionally, the conditions suggested in the article would also run afoul of the 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments.
As the Court said in Cruikshank, "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."
This 'debate' was had and settled in 1791. |
| Comment by:
PP9
(6/4/2019)
|
99.7% of murders are not part of mass shooting events. Why are those 0.3% so much more important than the other murders? Almost twice as many people are stung to death by bees in the US each year than die in mass shootings. Mass shootings are edge cases, and you don't make good policy on that.
Also, good luck modifying the Bill of Rights. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| There are other things so clearly out of the power of Congress, that the bare recital of them is sufficient, I mean the "...rights of bearing arms for defence, or for killing game..." These things seem to have been inserted among their objections, merely to induce the ignorant to believe that Congress would have a power over such objects and to infer from their being refused a place in the Constitution, their intention to exercise that power to the oppression of the people. —ALEXANDER WHITE (1787) |
|
|
