|
|
|
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:
PA: Militias were meant to protect us from government
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Marlin Reinhart had an opinion piece in The Morning Call the other day claiming that the Second Amendment no longer served a national purpose because the original state militias were transformed into the National Guard. But I noticed the one thing he forgot is that the state militias’ original purpose was in case our own government became too corrupt, the state militias of armed citizens were supposed to be a line of protection from the government-controlled military. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(6/20/2019)
|
"Unfortunately these days, thanks to the massively weakened Second Amendment, our state militias no longer have enough firepower to stand against our military if our current corrupt government* were to wrongfully declare martial law."
*But they do have enough firepower to go after them and their families.
Keeping them aware of that is in our best interest. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
