|
|
|
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:
Collins says his bill would restore New Yorkers' Second Amendment rights
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
My bill would restore New Yorkers’ Second Amendment rights and doesn’t supersede states’ rights.
I do believe in State’s rights, the need for local control and the 10th Amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing state rights. However, I want your readers to know my steadfast belief that states like New York should not have the ability to take away the Constitutional rights of their citizens. Under no circumstances should these basic rights be denied, and federal action is warranted in a situation where a state is infringing on the rights of any American. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(8/17/2017)
|
"...the Second Amendment rights granted to Americans in the Constitution."
Mr. Collins:
For the umpteen hundredth time, the Constitution doesn't "grant" rights, it GUARANTEES them. Words mean things, and in our constitutional system, fundamental rights are assumed to preexist that document, and are specifically mentioned to PROHIBIT the government from denying them. Your misrepresentation of that basic formula reinforces the false public perception that our liberty only exists because the Constitution ALLOWS it to. That is not the case. The Constitution exists to protect rights we already have, and does not "grant" them. |
|
|
| 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]. |
|
|
