|
|
|
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:
CA: Five types of gun laws the Founding Fathers loved
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Both of these beliefs ignore an irrefutable historical truth. The framers and adopters of the Second Amendment were generally ardent supporters of the idea of well-regulated liberty. Without strong governments and effective laws, they believed, liberty inevitably degenerated into licentiousness and eventually anarchy. Diligent students of history, particularly Roman history, the Federalists who wrote the Constitution realized that tyranny more often resulted from anarchy, not strong government. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(10/16/2017)
|
Sorry, Sparky, that horse done left th' barn.
The ordinances you list were local. The BoR only bound the United States until 1868, when the 14A applied it to bind the states, wholesale. The judiciary (being too-clever-by-half) decided that IT would decide which provisions and when were 'incorporated'. The dubious nature of 'incorporation doctrine' aside, it is now moot - the 2A has been incorporated to bind the states.
And, the right to take up arms against a rogue government was clearly elucidated in the Declaration of Independence, which set the First Principles in place that undergird the Constitution. That the colonies DID take up arms against the monarchy proves that, Q.E.D.
So, get lost, you cretin.. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege. [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)] |
|
|
