|
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 Second Amendment in the 116th Congress
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Every two years, we get a new Congress. That means the political terrain is changing with regards to our Second Amendment rights – at the federal level. So, as the 116th Congress is seated, it’s time to take a sober look at what the new Congress means for our rights.
The House of Representatives will be controlled by the Democrats, while the Senate will see an increased margin for the Republicans. This means that the 116th Congress will be a mixed bag for Second Amendment supporters. There will be good news and bad news for both the long-term and short-term outlooks over the next two years. Let’s take a closer look at each of the chambers. |
Comment by:
Stripeseven
(1/5/2019)
|
The gun control crowd is delusional and illogical. They stand there all smiles, with honey drippin' from their lips, telling elected officials that they should break their Oath of Office to knowingly deprive law abiding citizens of their constitutionally protected rights. TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242 says that is a federal crime. |
|
|
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) |
|
|