|
|
|
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:
The origins of the Second Amendment
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The idea that people can overthrow a tyrannical government may be admirable in theory, perhaps, but the US does not have a good record of accepting the theory when applied against Washington. The US was not happy when the Confederate States tried to put this idea into practice in 1861; nor when the Black Panthers advocated it in the 1960s; nor even when angry farmers in Pennsylvania tried it in the Whiskey Rebellion in the 1790s.
The core problem, in practice, is who speaks for the people?
Besides the collective right to keep and bear arms, the Second Amendment was probably also designed to defend the individual’s right to bear arms. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(11/18/2017)
|
The right ISN'T COLLECTIVE, it is an unalienable INDIVIDUAL right.
Revolution does not come with a built in gaurantee of success. Our Revolutionary War could have been lost, with Washington, Franklin, Revere, et al, either dead or POWs. There were several points during the war the matter could have gone to the Brits.
Wanna gauran-damn- tee? Buy a toaster oven.
But the right remains.
YOU HAVE TO WIN THE WAR!!! |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. — James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]. |
|
|
