Online users
???: Message   

LTE: Sorry, Jesse. You're not ALLOWED to be right.
Post Reply   Forum

Posted by: TEEBONE

06/07/2019, 14:48:00

Author Profile Mail author Edit

Second amendment

In his letter to the editor, Steven Howard Johnson sites the reason for the installment of the Second Amendment to the Constitution as being "forestalling the creation of a standing army" (The Capital, June 4).

He then goes on to assert that since the U.S. now has a standing army there is no longer any reason for the Second Amendment.

What Mr. Johnson doesn't understand is that the Second Amendment was really adopted as a defense against tyranny whether it be imposed through the force of a standing army or otherwise. The Second Amendment was not about protecting militias as he asserts, it was (and is) more properly about protecting the People (the militias are the People).

If the existence of standing armies was feared then, is it not logical to conclude that the Second Amendment is now all the more important with today's standing army being the instrument of the federal government?

The most tyrannical governments now and throughout history are those which have suppressed individual rights, including the right to bear arms and the right to self-defense.




Democrats wouldn't buy a clue if it was government subsidized.

Post Reply | Recommend | Alert   Previous | Next | Current page