|
|
|
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
(5/25/2019)
|
| Do what has to be done to control criminals, but only up to the point of where you start depriving law abiding citizens of their Constitutional rights. These elected servants were given the opportunity to "Serve," not "Rule" |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(5/25/2019)
|
Education Week, huh? (headshake)
"Today's Senate votes move New Hampshire forward on common-sense gun reform that strikes a reasonable balance between protecting public safety and second amendment rights."
BZZZZZT!!! Wrong.
Fundamental rights are not subject to "interest-balancing".
"We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding 'interest-balancing' approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government ... the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. . . The Second Amendment is no different [than] the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people[.]" - D.C. v. Heller (2008) |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people. — Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697]. |
|
|
