|
|
|
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:
With Gun Laws, We Can Profit from Australia’s Example
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://keepandbeararms.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The National Rifle Association and its supporters base their support of open gun laws on our Second Amendment.
Judge Antonin Scalia, whose opinion changed the court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment and dictated a much-looser reading of the amendment, based his opinion on his evaluation of the minds of the writers of the Constitution when the amendment was written. This was in accordance with his own historical interpretation — which ignored prior case law and allowed an experienced debater like Scalia to justify his decision regardless of past legal precedent |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(5/4/2016)
|
There were two comments on this article.
They were "pending approval".
Neither were disrespectful nor vulgar.
They will not be "approved".
Wonder WHY....? |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
