![Keep and Bear Arms](/images/clear.gif)
|
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:
Safeguarding the Second Amendment
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
While Missouri is home to the Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground Law, nothing of the sort exists on the federal level. In order to protect Second Amendment rights of Americans across the country, I am a proud cosponsor of fellow Missourian Congressman Jason Smith's bill, the American Family and Private Property Defense Act. This legislation would prevent an American citizen from being prosecuted for the use of force against an intruder as long as that force was used to protect themselves, another individual or private property. I am hopeful we will be able to get this bill passed to ensure Second Amendment rights nationwide are safeguarded. |
Comment by:
PHORTO
(8/1/2020)
|
"[O]ur Founding Fathers saw it necessary to amend the United States Constitution with the Second Amendment to give the citizens of this country the right to bear arms[.]"
Why is it that so many politicians on "our side" fail in their understanding of the Bill of Rights?
It GIVES us NOTHING. It GUARANTEES things.\
Guddamit, I'm getting sick of this. |
|
|
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) |
|
|