|
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:
Interpreting the Second Amendment
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
Website: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
|
There
are no comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"The Second Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1791, reads:"
"'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.'"
"None of the recent mass killers was a member of a well regulated militia (such as the National Guard) yet it was legal for them to own guns."
"Now let's look at arms -- specifically, guns -- as they existed at the time the Second Amendment was ratified."
"Guns in 1791 were made by a gunsmith, had rudimentary rifling, were single-shot weapons, loaded through the muzzle and fired by means of a flintlock." ... |
No
Comments found for this Newslink
|
|
QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people. — Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697]. |
|
|