|
|
|
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:
MN: 2nd Amendment originally protected slavery
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Being a gun owner but skeptical about such explanations, I wanted to be more informed before responding. I found Thom Hartmann's book, "The Hidden History of Guns and the Second Amendment." It cites historical references, including records of the states’ conventions when they considered adopting the Constitution following the General Convention in 1787. It shows that the framers of the Constitution didn't consider defense of oneself or for "hearth and home," overthrowing a tyrannical government, or repelling invaders as reasons for the Second Amendment. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(9/12/2019)
|
Idiot!
The founders left documents explaining their reasoning. Read THE FEDERALIST PAPERS or even THE ANTIFEDERALIST PAPERS.
The best succinct explanation for why the WA was written is IN the 2A itself; the "well regulated militia being necessary" for the preservation of "a free state." State, as in "condition," (which can be good) not "state" as in "California" --- which is not good.
This is not a hard thing to suss out.
|
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(9/12/2019)
|
| Yeah. An'an'an' the country was founded in 1619 on the backs of slaves, too! [I think I just threw up a little in my mouth....] |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908 [by an Indian extremist opposed to Gandhi's agreement with Smuts], whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defend me, I told him it was his duty to defend me even by using violence. Hence it was that I took part in the Boer War, the so-called Zulu Rebellion and [World War I]. Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor. — Mohandas K. Gandhi, Young India, August 11, 1920 from Fischer, Louis ed.,The Essential Gandhi, 1962 |
|
|
