|
|
|
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:
Parsing the Second Amendment
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The Second Amendment runs thus (I have modernized the punctuation and capitalization): “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” I offer a modern translation: “Because the armed forces are necessary to the security of a free state, the people’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” One should insert the language “in the service of the state” to drive home the point that the United States, having by now established a well-regulated military, is no longer dependent on state militias, as it was when the Bill of Rights was written. |
| Comment by:
dasing
(7/2/2016)
|
Because of the standing army, that is even more reason the several States need militias, to protect against Fed oppression. Also, the 2A did NOT state that standing army was nesessary, in fact they set up the constitution to prevent select militias (national guard) and standing armys (army and air force, also the coast guard). The only protective force allowed on a continuating basis is the Navy.
|
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
