|
|
|
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:
No Fly, No Buy Sponsor: 2nd Amendment ‘Will Not’ Protect Americans from Radical Islamic Terrorism
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
CNSNews.com asked Garamendi, who sponsored a “no fly, no buy” bill in the House last December and planned to reintroduce it in response to the Orlando massacre: “Do you think the Second Amendment right will help protect Americans from terrorism? Do you think the individual bearing of arms will protect Americans from radical Islam?”
“No,” Garamendi answered. “It will not.”
“That is a fight that has to be carried on internationally,” said the congressman, who participated in House Democrats' Wednesday sit-in over gun control. “And we’re doing that over in the Middle East right now. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(6/25/2016)
|
What BS. First, this is a DEMOCRAT co-sponsor, of a bill that is unconstitutional on several fronts; the Second, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
The Second Amendment infringement is obvious, but it is activated by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. While the Second guarantees a fundamental right, the Fifth and Fourteenth guarantee that this right (and all others) cannot be denied a priori, without due process of law.
This bill would allow being named on the list to initially deny the right to buy a firearm, with a supposed "due process" right of appeal after the fact.
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee that rights can't be denied until AFTER due process, not BEFORE. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| "Some people think that the Second Amendment is an outdated relic of an earlier time. Doubtless some also think that constitutional protections of other rights are outdated relics of earlier times. We The People own those rights regardless, unless and until We The People repeal them. For those who believe it to be outdated, the Second Amendment provides a good test of whether their allegiance is really to the Constitution of the United States, or only to their preferences in public policies and audiences. The Constitution is law, not vague aspirations, and we are obligated to protect, defend, and apply it. If the Second Amendment were truly an outdated relic, the Constitution provides a method for repeal. The Constitution does not furnish the federal courts with an eraser." --9th Circuit Court Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, dissenting opinion in which the court refused to rehear the case while citing deeply flawed anti-Second Amendment nonsense (Nordyke v. King; opinion filed April 5, 2004) |
|
|
