|
|
|
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:
Stripeseven
(9/10/2019)
|
| Expansion...You see.. one foot in the door, and they move for more, with no end in sight until their goal of total unconstitutional confiscation has been achieved. Serve not Rule. |
| Comment by:
jac
(9/10/2019)
|
Why stop there? Why not let anyone that has a beef against you ask the courts to take away your rights?
That's what the politicians want. More ways to disarm the entire population.
Except, the criminals will still have their guns. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(9/10/2019)
|
jac -
"Except, the criminals will still have their guns."
Allow me to rephrase that:
"Except, the criminals AND THE GOVERNMENT will still have their guns." |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
