|
|
|
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:
UT: Gun control doesn’t disregard the Constitution
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Every year more than 30,000 U.S. citizens die because of murder or suicide, and guns injured more than 2,000 of them. Between 2014 and 2019, the number of people killed during mass shootings was 2,083.
The Second Amendment states: “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.” It seems like guaranteeing the individual rights to bear guns was not the intention of the Second Amendment. If this interpretation is accurate, establishing higher requisites to own a pistol or limit its access is not against the law. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(2/18/2021)
|
ANOTHER incorrect interpretation of the 2A. It was established in the HELLER case it IS an individual right. Is ignorance contagious?
Sadly I think it probably is.
It's just one sentence, with a meaning that SHOULD be very easy to discern. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(2/18/2021)
|
Wilson flunks English Grammar and Usage 101.
"Well-regulated" modifies the noun, "militia", not the noun "right." They aren't even in the same clause. It is the militia that is assumed as well-regulated, Q.E.D.
The subordinate (dependent) clause announces the reason the guarantee IS BEING ENUMERATED IN WRITING.
It does not create the right, nor does it place any limits or conditions upon it.
The main (independent) clause declares the right as belonging to the people, assumes it as preexisting, and stipulates that it is unalienable.
"Because of THAT, we are guaranteeing THIS."
THAT ≠ THIS
It's no more complicated than that. |
| Comment by:
repealfederalgunlaws
(2/18/2021)
|
| Globalist controlled deseret "news" shoveling anti 2nd amendment propaganda again. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| "And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling in terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? [...] The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!" —Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago (Chapter 1 "Arrest") |
|
|
