|
|
|
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:
MD: Second amendment
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
What Mr. Johnson doesn't understand is that the Second Amendment was really adopted as a defense against tyranny whether it be imposed through the force of a standing army or otherwise. The Second Amendment was not about protecting militias as he asserts, it was (and is) more properly about protecting the People (the militias are the People).
If the existence of standing armies was feared then, is it not logical to conclude that the Second Amendment is now all the more important with today's standing army being the instrument of the federal government?
Ed.: Second letter. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(6/7/2019)
|
| Sorry, Jesse. You're not ALLOWED to be right. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. — James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]. |
|
|
