|
|
|
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
(4/3/2020)
|
It is maddening the way these judges slice and dice and parse and whittle.
The question isn't how MUCH a law burdens a constitutionally protected right, but whether it burdens it AT ALL.
Constitutional protection doesn't amount to squat if legislators divine how much protection the government will allow, and courts collaborate in that subjugation of ironclad proscriptions.
Once and for all, there is no such thing as a "living constitution." The very concept is a diametric contradiction to the core of U.S. founding principles. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(4/3/2020)
|
| P.S. - So, NYA. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people. — Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697]. |
|
|
