|
|
|
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 with Richard Martinez
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
At the National Rifle Association’s annual convention in Nashville, we caught up with Richard Martinez, a spokesman with the gun control advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety. The group protested the NRA show as well as pending legislation in Tennessee. But we asked him about the big ideas that govern his process — just as we did with presidential hopeful Ted Cruz.
“The Second Amendment says you have the right to bear arms —nobody interprets that to give you the right to have a tank or a machine gun or an atomic bomb. Why? Because it’s not reasonable,” Martinez said, responding to Cruz’s advocacy of loosening gun regulations.
|
| Comment by:
xqqme
(5/16/2015)
|
Without the right to those "other" arms, what good would a "Letter of Marque", something specifically authorized by the Constitution as being granted to citizens, be?
"Arms" for the citizens includes each and every one of the "arms" described in various "arms control" treaties between the US Gov't and foreign nations. |
| Comment by:
laker1
(5/16/2015)
|
Keep-that means I own it and you can't have it.
Bear-that means I have it right here on me and its loaded. Nothing about infringing further on this right of the people. Weapons of used by the military soldier are weapons that the civilian militia(the people) can be used to defend against an oppressive government. |
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(5/16/2015)
|
Our Founding Fathers wisely opted not delimit "arms", leaving it to the nation's citizens to select arms most suitable to their situation and resources. In practice, in their era, rifles and edged weapons were universal to light infantry units. Even then the British complained the Colonials had 'unfair advantage' with their rifled weapons.
Today, our citizens still have weapons similar to current light infantry. And, yes Mr. Martinez, we also have machine guns and tanks - and mini-guns, and cannon and 'sniper weapons - as well. They don't threaten you.
Better to turn your talents to keeping known violent perps/gangs safely incarcerated rather than render their prospective victims helpless. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
