|
|
|
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:
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(9/26/2019)
|
"The right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
The "we'll regulated militia ...." clause is an exemplar, and while NOT unimportant, does not state anything about the right or who owns it, or how the government must relate to it. |
| Comment by:
lbauer
(9/26/2019)
|
It seems obvious to me that the militia clause was attached to the Second Amendment explicitly to enable the government to REQUIRE members of the militia, who at the time were all able bodied males between 16 and 45 not otherwise serving in the government, to own and maintain such arms as would be required in a militia muster.
To the best of my knowledge that definition of militia still holds today though should be expanded to all citizens whether male or female. |
|
|
| 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]. |
|
|
