|
|
|
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:
Not The Victim Hillary Needs
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://keepandbeararms.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
“Why can’t everyone just have their DNA on file? Then it would be so much easier to catch this guy.”
Those were my actual words at the age of 20 after a stranger broke into my apartment and raped me.
It seems like common sense, right? It would be so simple. After all, it’s for our safety. Then these things would never happen. All we have to do is give up a small piece of our constitutional rights (which should change with new technology anyway, right?) and then the government could completely protect us from all violent criminals. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(9/27/2016)
|
Nice article, but Kimberly needs to read beyond the narrow confines of the Heller precedent, and actually LOOK at the language. It says "for lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
It was not written that way to limit the right to the confines of the home, although that was the core issue of the lawsuit. It specifically cites that self-defense in the home is ONLY ONE aspect of the right, albeit the one at issue in the finding.
Writers who limit their treatises to the preferred "narrow reading" of the Heller decision must become aware of this fact, and take it where it needs to go instead of remaining silent on this critical point. |
|
|
| 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]. |
|
|
