"The right of ordinary citizens to possess weapons is the most extraordinary, most controversial, and least understood of those liberties secured by Englishmen and bequeathed to their American colonists. It lies at the very heart of the relationship between the individual and his fellows, and between the individual and his government."
by:
Joyce Lee Malcolm
(1941-) American professor of law, historian, and Constitutional scholar
Source:
To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994), p. IX
Rating:
Categories:
 
Bookmark and Share  
Reader comments about this quote:
Don't let anyone take your right to own and carry arms.
 -- Joe, Rochester, MI     
  • 2
    		•  
    Here in Canada we have 35% to 40% long-gun owners. I can show you pictures and accreted facts of black bears and grisly bears coming on peoples property; I'm sorry at this point I need a gun, Not a fag gun like a .22 but a real gun like a .30-06 or a .303; something's that going to kill these if they are going to start coming at me; you wanna fuck around with bears like in the Toyota ad; go ahead. His next step is your liver; he's not hugging you; he;s assessing.This is an animal that will kill you in 3/10 s of a second. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? THESE ARE NOT PLAYMATES. THESE ARE DANGEROUS WILD ANIMALS!
     -- L. Hanson, Edmonton, Canada     
  • 1
    		•  
    This is a great and balanced, thought provoking quote. It is not taking a position on the issue but just stating the facts of the right and of the controversy. Yes generally we have the right to use and bear arms but are also are required by customs and law to do so responsibly. In many places, National Forests for example there are signs that read, "Firearms May Only Be Fired In An Emergency". This sign obviously does not disallow the carine or bearing of arms but does place a prohibition upon there use. I suggest that such a prohibition exists by custom and law throughout our society. Now when you choose to use a firearm you may be called in to court to prove the existence of an emergency. So that is the dichotomy of an absolute right to bear arms versus a limited right to use them.
     -- Waffler, Smith     
  • 3
    		•  
    Resist the "Brady Bunch", they are after your guns and they never rest.
     -- jim k, Austin,Tx     
  • 1
    		•  
    The right to keep and bear arms is universal...no truly "free" person can be disarmed without a fight. The ability to hunt and provide for yourself is also a natural right and the government has no business...NONE...trying to regulate this right.
     -- J Carlton, Calgary     
  • 1
    		•  
    Our guns prevent dictatorship in America. We must never give them up.
     -- cal, lewisville, tx     
  • 2
    		•  
    The "here in Canada" quote above has a grain of truth to it but unfortunately it openly displays the ignorance and crudity of the author. Most of the hunter`s and sportsmen I know in Canada are actually able to express themselves without foul language and sexual references. Clean it up Dude! Or no one will ever take you seriously.
     -- J Carlton, Calgary     
  • 2
    		•  
    The 2nd Amendment says "...the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." The word "infringed" means to limit, undermine, or encroach on. The government is not only prohibited from outlawing firearms, it doesn't even have the constitutional right to regulate their ownership. It is true that, out of necessity, firearms must be prohibited in schools, courthouses, etc. but the emergency only provision proposed by Waffler, while not abandoning the right, is indeed an infringement. Also, we learn how to safely and effectively operate firearms through practice. If their use were stricken to emergency only situations, no one would know how to use them, making them more dangerous and effectively useless.
     -- Publius, USA     
  • 3
    		•  
    "A gun, like any other source of power, is a force for either good or evil, being neither in itself, but dependent upon those who possess it." I do not know the attribution of this quote, but it is a jewel in defense of our right to keep and bare arms. Accolades for comments from Carlton and Publius.
     -- Carol, Georgia     
  • 2
    		•  
    It's ashamed that so many Americans are oblivious to the origins of our rights and freedoms. Its this lack of knowledge of our own history and concern for our freedoms that very well may cost us our freedoms. I pray that that day never comes. - Monkin -
     -- Anonymous, Columubia, MO     
  • 2
    		•  
     -- Anonymous      
    Wonderful Quote!
     -- Kennedy Hansen, Edgerton, NE     
    		•  
    Remember Suzanna Gratia Hupp from Texas? She lost both her parents in a Restaurant shooting in Texas as she described as a mad man. She was arguing for the 2nd amendment. After stating she had taken her gun out of her purse and left it in the car because of gun laws at the time. At the end of her statement she told the Congress that the real reason for the 2nd amendment was for the people waving at those behind her and pointing from one side to the others at those in front of her (the House) while stating it is so we can protect all of ourselves from you. She told them the 2nd amendment wasn't written for duck hunting or any kind of hunting but to defend ourselves from tyranny. She did not say those exact words, but the cocky look on Schumer's face was a picture to behold in time.
     -- Elaine, atlanta     
  • 1
    		•  
    It is better for the Nations to ensure for themselves a well disciplined and sensitive and above all an Impartial Police Force - with well equipped trigger and trnsport rather than go 'empowering the individual citizens' - whom no Nation can control.
     -- Vedapushpa, Bangalore - India     
  • 3
    		•  
    The unconstrained right of self defense cannot be decoupled from the unalienable rights of Life and Liberty.

    A right inestimable to the law abiding and peace loving and formidable to tyrants and tyrants-in-waiting only.

     -- Patrick Henry, Red Hill     
  • 2
    		•  
    Just substitute the word 'weapons' with 'power.'  This is really what we are talking about.  The Bill of Rights was a prohibition on the regulating of POWER of the citizen.  On the contrary, the Constitution is the regulation of governmental power — We the People are the regulators of government, not the other way around. 

    Power checks power, period.  The people were never expected to transfer their power to the government!  By doing so, the people become subservient wards of the state — called 'subjects' in monarchical societies.  Keeping the populace in poverty (powerlessness) is the goal while empowering the ruling class.  It's the same old racket for 10,000 years.  It really does take an enlightened people to live free.
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  • 2
    		•  
    After any shooting in a home or neighborhood there is an investigation if that preliminary investigation clearly shows it was in self-defense no further action need be taken. No arrest, indictment or trial is necessary.

    But then enters the influence of a political agenda to disarm the American people aided by the anti-Second Amendment and self-defense narratives of the leftist the media to demonize the tool used instead of the individual's actions. It's a propaganda campaign aimed at the ignorant to manipulate them into advocating the incremental destruction of probably the most important right our founders wanted protected for obvious reasons. Not for hunting or sport shooting but as a means to resist tyranny as the founders themselves proved to be sometimes necessary.

     -- Mick, Pleasant Hill     
    		•  
     -- Abby      
    Said well.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
    		•  
     -- Ronw13, ID      
    Only no good murdering savages want to possess weapons, it is as cut and dry as that. There's no controversy, no vague notion here. It's as simple as that.
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
    		•  
    Using the same logic, only no good murdering savages want to be socialists or drive a car — it is as cut and dry as that. To date, every administration so socialism has savagely destroyed economies,   killed and tortured individuals after removing their arms. I had an acquaintance in high school that learned (good education) to make a very lucrative living by getting into accidents the legally defensible way. One day while under severe influence of drugs and alcohol, he ran into a car killing a baby. More people are killed by cars than by guns and more people are saved by gun threat than are killed by guns.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
    		•  
    Mike, Norwalk: I am strong objector of the automobile. That horrific contraption has basically put a break on civilization. The same power force and lack of respect for life that the neglectful firearm owner demonstrates is exhibited by every automobile owner. The answer is a national public electric train system and mew inspired respect for life.
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
    		•  
    Correction: new inspired respect for life
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
    		•  
    Sillik, I absolutely agree with a new inspired respect for life would be a giant step forward in man's noble advancement. Such can only be recognized by acknowledging individual sovereignty, inalienable rights and liberty through "the laws of nature and of nature's God". All mandatory (or otherwise) mind movies or varying forms of groupings, social adaptations (such as any form of socialism) or theoretical multitudinous applications thereto are an exercise in mental masturbation, false dichotomies and the mentally ill's rationalization for enslavement.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
    		•  
    Mike, Norwalk: You agree that I do indeed call myself a Socialist. Can you tell me if you in your existence experiences have personally met a similar individual calling themselves this title? Now I'm not talking about the usual suspects that you typical name, Mao, Lenin, Marx but a person who can post on Libertytree.cu they are a Socialist as I do?



     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
    		•  
    Sillik, YES, I have been acquainted with many calling themselves socialists as you do. I am even old enough to have interacted with hippie communes — where most called themselves socialists. Most of those pretended love, peace and harmony as do you also. Their mentally ill religions all failed dramatically because they did not follow fiscal laws of nature nor recognize absolute individual sovereignty. I can't think of an exception at the moment but, everyone that I've known that called themselves socialist had to change the meanings of words, as a rule vs. exception like you do. 
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  • 1
    		•  
    Mike Norwalk: I don't change anything. I lay the foundation for the meaning of life and the path to sustain that life. To be a social creature is the way. To be real in our intent and our motives is to release us for the conventional psuedo-social existence. Socialism is the vision of social abilities to create.
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
    		•  
    Correction Mike, Norwalk: change, meaning in the context that you present, I do try to change attitudes.
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
  • 1
    		•  
    Mike Norwalk: Additionally, I'm not pretending, it's a big challenge dealing with this backwards attitude and yes I do lose my temper. But so far I believe I'm progressing steadily and on course for the preservation of the human testimony.
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
  • 1
    		•  
    Mike, Norwalk: Finally Mike Norwalk we humans are looking for a not guilty verdict from the judgement of existence and destiny and we intend to win in nature's Court. How do we plead? We plead innocent, innocent by reason of sanity.
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
  • 1
    		•  
    Do you actually realize that your statement does not say anything?  It is filled with jargon that only you know the meaning of.

    "Socialism is the vision of social abilities to create" means nothing.  Socialism is socialism, it is not a vision.  What the heck is a 'social ability'?  And how would one create without social abilities? All of us can create, certainly without socialism.

    Your motto means nothing, so repeating it over and over does not change anything.  I bet not even an avowed socialist could interpret it.  You are obviously on your own with this, and there is no way for a fellow socialist to join you.
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  • 1
    		•  
    E. Archer,  NYC  Its not surprising that you of the psychotic conventional mindset would not understand what a social ability would entail. Diplomacy, sincere negotiations, purposeful goals and intent, cooperative life processing, productiveness are completely unknown to the conventional individual. I will not argue the point that I am the only individual versed in what I express, that is explained in fact that I alone possess the maturity for any substantial meaningful human expression, sad to say.
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
  • 1
    		•  

    Classic narcissism.  If you can't define a euphemism, it has no meaning to anyone else.  Your motto is but a string of euphemism's meaning something that only you "alone possess the maturity" to comprehend.  Hence you are powerless, cannot lead anyone to your vision, and are indeed alone. 


     -- E Archer, NYC     
  • 1
    		•  

    According to Fred, my "psychotic conventional mindset" precludes me from understanding what is meant by "social abilities" so he won't bother.  Somehow NO ONE understands diplomacy, sincerity, purpose, intention, cooperation, productivity except you alone.  Sheesh, who's the psychotic one.  And socialism is NONE of that.  Socialism is collective power claiming power over the individuals that comprise it.  It is the ultimate cultural appropriation of all.


     -- E Archer, NYC     
  • 2
    		•  
    Sorry Mr Archer your psychotic arrangement produces nothing but misleading film versions of life, touchdowns, slam dunks, home runs, crooked politicians in essence a straight course to the grave, and I'm the only one that has an alternative. No narcissism, no psychosis, just the honest truth.
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
  • 1
    		•  
    Again, Fred, you won't simply explain 'social abilities' — as far as I can tell you are simply talking about honor, integrity, compassion, and simple manners which are all integral in a civilized society.  What you have not included is respect of other people's views and quite frankly the laws that protect their natural born rights. 

    I believe you are under the impression that the government 'rules' and therefore laws can be amended to compel behavior of the unbelievers of socialist utopia.  Nothing could be further from the truth in America.  The Bill of Rights does not grant any rights, it specifically prohibits certain 'rule-making' by the government. 

    The government cannot compel the people to speak or not speak, to posses arms or not posses arms, to believe a certain ideology or not believe a certain ideology.  The government has been given no authority to regulate any of that.

    All of Fred's socialist dreams, cannot be adopted by the government, they are not authorized to do so.
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  • 1
    		•  
    Mr Archer: We are governored by what is correct. You don't really have a view, and I don't have a view. There is one correct procedure for  all actions and the art of reason will lead us to that procedure.  We as reasonable men must weigh components of every variable and arrive at the  resolving formulas.  Social abilities refer to the connection of our species. We understand existence correctly if we realize when we look into ourselves we are observing everyone, and when look at others we are observing ourselves.  So we feel a connection with the most heinous acting of our follows as the most wholesome. We try desperately to understand those who go on murderous rampages and try to understand that could be any one of us and not put ourselves in a high righteous judgemental position to avoid more of this practice. At the same we want to follow those who have been credited with great acts of heroism and find we are capable of the same distinction.  Social abilities grow and grow as we learn and learn and our follows are a great reservoir for learning.
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
    		•  

    It sounds like you are talking about the spiritual development of the individual, awakening, pursuing truth and harmony with natural law.  And whatever our views may be, the truth is the truth whether we become aware of it or not.  This is referred to as 'the Way,' 'the Tao,' 'the Path,' and 'Dharma' in various religions and philosophies.

    These are honorable and worthy pursuits for any person who chooses it.  However, the problem arises when those that claim authority or special status attempt to compel others to follow a specific 'way,' for their own good of course, often for the same reasons, Fred, that you justify your position: 

    "I am the only individual versed in what I express, that is explained in fact that I alone possess the maturity for any substantial meaningful human expression, sad to say."

    Despotism has reigned for centuries upon that premise.  It is the co-opting of personal power to rule the world.    From the Catholic Church to communism, the power hungry have enslaved the masses to forever tithe to their 'lords' and obey the ruler as an incarnation of Truth itself to whom we all must genuflect.

    Socialism and other statist forms of collectivism, serves this hierarchy.  Socialism is a religion to the god of Power; there is no truth, it is whatever we say it is.  The common people are ruled and kept in a state of disempowerment through dumbed-down excuses for why this is for our own good.  We've heard it for the last 3 years as the global authoritarians have compelled the world to inject themselves with experimental gene therapy that has killed (and will kill) millions.  'Climate change' is the rallying cry for socialists world-wide, threatening an Apocalypse if we do not obey (sound familiar?).

    We often hear from the devout socialist that real socialism has never been implemented, and then they proceed to define what are in essence Christian ideals.  But bring that up and the vitriol begins showing their very anti-Christian nature and how those professing diplomacy and cooperative life are filled with rage against anyone pointing out their hypocrisy.


     -- E Archer, NYC     
  • 2
    		•  
    Mr Archer: I would say I'm that I'm not anti-christian any more then  I am anti-VCR. Christianity had it's developmental proceedings, but now we must grow up and move past it's uselessness. It is now just mostly criminal and has always probably harbored those elements.
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
  • 2
    		•  
    Mr Archer: The conflict of our existence is the spoiled brat anti-social(psychotic) child in opposition to the social responsible (Socialist) adult. I try very strenuously to be in full support of former being developed into the latter,
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
  • 2
    		•  
    If you want people to grow up and take responsibility, the nanny-state is no way to go.  Socialism is a bunch of folks claiming to be the 'adults' (like Fred) in whom the rest of us 'children' are to be under their guidance perpetually.  The nanny-state does not let people grow up, it conditions people to be dependent, so the man with the slop bucket gets voted as swine herder every time.  Socialism is the appropriation of the very spirit of humankind.
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  • 1
    		•  
     
    Rate this quote!
    How many stars?
    0
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
     
    What do YOU think?
    Your name:
    		 Your town:
        CLICK JUST ONCE!

    Today's Quotes
    More Quotations
    Most Popular
    Recent Comments
    • E Archer, NYC
    • E Archer, NYC
    • Mike,, Norwalk
    • Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown
    • Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown
    • Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown
    • Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown
    • Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown
    • Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown
    • Mike,, Norwalk
    • Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown
    • Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown
    • Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown
    • Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown
    • Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown
    • Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown
    • Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown
    • E Archer, NYC
    • E Archer, NYC
    • E Archer, NYC
    • E Archer, NYC
    • Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown
    • Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown
    • Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown
    • Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown
    • Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown
    • Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown
    • Mike,, Norwalk
    • anon
    • anon
    Get a Quote-A-Day! Free!
    Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box.
    RSS Subscribe
    Quotes & Quotations - Send This Quote to a Friend

    © 1998-2024 Liberty-Tree.ca