Comments on: The Second Amendment http://libertymaryland.com/2008/03/19/the-second-amendment/ Political blog about Maryland and liberty Thu, 28 Aug 2008 03:40:27 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Justin Vest http://libertymaryland.com/2008/03/19/the-second-amendment/#comment-6 Justin Vest Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:10:51 +0000 http://libertymaryland.com/2008/03/19/the-second-amendment/#comment-6 Well said. Thank you for recognizing your own limitations as a would-be ruler. I support your candidacy. Well said. Thank you for recognizing your own limitations as a would-be ruler. I support your candidacy.

]]> By: Kelsey http://libertymaryland.com/2008/03/19/the-second-amendment/#comment-5 Kelsey Sun, 30 Mar 2008 01:18:43 +0000 http://libertymaryland.com/2008/03/19/the-second-amendment/#comment-5 "I believe that the intent of the founders was to create the ultimate of the many checks and balances in the Constitution via this amendment." You don't have conjecture about the intent of the founding fathers on the 2nd amendment. The anti-federalists papers (written by those in favor of a bill of rights, including Patrick Henry) explains their intent quite clearly. I don't understand how gun laws and full-out hand gun bans fits with "shall not be infringed." Here is their 17th proposed amendment - 17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit. And that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. (My fiance blogged about this here http://ralree.info/2008/3/19/that-the-people-have-a-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms ) I'm relatively new to the MD area and I've had a little culture shock with regards to the role of government keeping everyone "safe." I can't think of a home in my Alaskan neighborhood that wasn't armed. Half my high school friends were on the school riflery team. I remember people walking around downtown Anchorage with new weapons from a gun show - the only controversy was one of animal rights vs. hunting. I'm glad to know I'm not alone in this state :) “I believe that the intent of the founders was to create the ultimate of the many checks and balances in the Constitution via this amendment.”

You don’t have conjecture about the intent of the founding fathers on the 2nd amendment. The anti-federalists papers (written by those in favor of a bill of rights, including Patrick Henry) explains their intent quite clearly. I don’t understand how gun laws and full-out hand gun bans fits with “shall not be infringed.”

Here is their 17th proposed amendment -

17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit. And that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

(My fiance blogged about this here http://ralree.info/2008/3/19/that-the-people-have-a-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms )

I’m relatively new to the MD area and I’ve had a little culture shock with regards to the role of government keeping everyone “safe.”
I can’t think of a home in my Alaskan neighborhood that wasn’t armed. Half my high school friends were on the school riflery team. I remember people walking around downtown Anchorage with new weapons from a gun show - the only controversy was one of animal rights vs. hunting.

I’m glad to know I’m not alone in this state :)

]]>