|
|
|
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:
CT: On 2nd Amendment, Day is no ‘defender of the people’s rights’
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
For decades now, The Day's editors have run a hysterical and biased campaign cunningly designed to help deprive Americans of their Second Amendment rights. If there is a shooting anywhere, you print full details of the tragedy, and then milk it for all it is worth. Callously using the victim's injuries and deaths to promote your immoral agenda has become a sickening spectacle that is recognized by many readers as a tragic misuse of your power. It's a violation of your self-described mandate to: "be the champion and protector of the public interest and defender of the people's rights." If you think the public isn't well aware of your thinly disguised tactics, you're sadly mistaken. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(2/1/2020)
|
| Nice rant. Deaf ears. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
