|
|
|
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:
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(4/30/2016)
|
| "The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose'. This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependant upon that instrument for its existence." - U.S. v Cruikshank, 1875 |
| Comment by:
-none-
(4/30/2016)
|
| too late to lock him in a room with steven n. sheppard for a change of mind, he needs the classic 'got mugged/mugging conversion' from liberal to conservative: http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/she-grabbed-her-gun-sultan-woman-80-kills-intruder-after-he-stabs-her-husband/ |
| Comment by:
dasing
(5/1/2016)
|
| It is impossable to revise a RIGHT. Changing the words in a document will not change a right, ever! |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
