<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Comments by B Mayo</title>
    <description>Most recent public comments by B Mayo</description>
    <link>https://nowcomment.com/users/123912</link>
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="https://nowcomment.com/users/123912/comments"/>
    <item>
      <title>What does the second amendment really say?</title>
      <link>https://nowcomment.com/documents/100728?scroll_to=2835649</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://nowcomment.com/documents/100728?scroll_to=2835649</guid>
      <description>I'm surprised that no one wants to challenge the widespread idea that the second amendment says anyone can carry an AK-47. Some people even think the second amendment says &quot;The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.&quot; That's NOT what it says. If I say, &quot;This being Fred's birthday, we should throw a party,&quot; I'm not saying we show throw a New Year's Eve party, or indeed any kind of party other than a birthday party. That's the plain sense of the sentence, and any other interpretation is willful and illegitimate. That's unfortunately what the courts have been doing with the second amendment since the late 19th century, but it's a betrayal of the simple idea that the people should at all times be in a position to defend themselves against a tyrannical government - by maintaining well regulated militias. &quot;A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.&quot; &quot;WELL REGULATED&quot;! That means keeping and bearing arms - for service in the militia - shall not be prohibited, not every crazy running around with a gun under his coat. I do wish a few more people would actually read our Constitution. It's a good document.</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 11 Jun 2022 18:35:53 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
