|
|
|
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:
| Comment by:
PP9
(10/2/2022)
|
"...on the basis of its radically expanded interpretation of the Second Amendment,"
The radical bit was when it was limited to less than the current interpretation. Restoration is in progress, but be clear that it's not over until the tens of thousands of gun laws are gone.
"while giving no weight to the state’s interest in reducing the number of firearms in the public sphere."
Correct. The state's interest is of no consequence when it contradicts the Constitution.
"Ultimately, all that mattered was the right of “law-abiding citizens” ... to decide they wanted to carry a gun to protect themselves."
Right again! That's the funny thing about rights. You don't need a reason nor permission from any authority to express them. |
| Comment by:
lucky5eddie
(10/4/2022)
|
| Watching this supposedly highly educated individual stumble from one emotionally charged argument to another is really quite sad. Maybe he should try as tissue first. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
