|
|
|
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:
CA: The truth about guns rights
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Those who believe that no one wants to take away all guns or the Second Amendment are sadly mistaken or hiding their agenda.
The U.S. government argued in federal court (U.S. v. Emerson, 2001) that there is absolutely no right of an individual to own firearms. More recently, John Paul Stevens, the 97-year-old retired Supreme Court justice, called for the repeal of the Second Amendment and is encouraging anti-gun protesters to do the same.
At the anti-gun rallies in March there were many signs sayings, “I wish Obama had taken your guns,” “Ban all guns,” “Yes, in fact, I am here to take your guns.” |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(4/7/2018)
|
| An armed person is a citizen. A disarmed person is a subject. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(4/7/2018)
|
The US may have argued in Emerson that an individual has no right to own a gun, but that stands in defiance of the Second Amendment's plain wording, to say nothing of Heller.
You're here to take my guns?
Better bring yours.
You'll need them.
MOLON LABE. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
