|
|
|
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:
The Supreme Court Could Spell the End of American Democracy
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
In December, the court will hear the case of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, which has the potential to rival or surpass Heller for its impact on gun rights and gun regulation.
At issue is a New York City ordinance adopted in 2001 that bars residents from taking their guns outside city limits. The ordinance was challenged in a federal lawsuit filed by the National Rifle Association’s New York affiliate and three city residents, who argued that the regulation was unconstitutional in light of Heller. |
| Comment by:
xqqme
(10/17/2019)
|
| America was not formed to be a democracy, but a Republic. If the Supreme Court so rules... Fan-Frickin-Tastic! |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(10/17/2019)
|
+1 to above comment.
So if SCOTUS declares NYC's gun law unconstitutional -- and it is -- then democracy is ....dead? Because "the will of the people" has been thwarted?
"The will of the people" to violate the Constitution? --- The Highest Law of the Land??
Our ejumakashun system is in dire need of being overhauled!!!!! |
| Comment by:
RichardJCoon
(10/17/2019)
|
| Sounds like the court has an opportunity to restore our "Constitutional Republic". |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. — James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]. |
|
|
