|
|
|
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:
NY: The Second Amendment Is A Right To Bear Arms, Not A Right To Threaten
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The Second Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees a citizen of this country the right to bear arms. However, it does not give someone the right to threaten another person’s life with that weapon. As a matter of law, a verbal or written threat on someone’s life with a gun most likely is a crime. I was quite disturbed to read in this publication Christina Cardinale, the Democratic candidate for the 150th Assembly District which includes Chautauqua County, was receiving serious threats of harm by some who own guns. This is utterly deplorable. She was forced to come to the Post Journal to explain she was in fact very intent on vigorously protecting Second Amendment rights. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(6/25/2020)
|
Waidaminnit. A New York DEMOCRAT is "very intent on vigorously protecting Second Amendment rights?"
(Anybody wanna buy a bridge in Chautauqua County, NY?)
Who do you (and she) think you're kidding? Democrats = inveterate liars.
People who vote to remove or diminish others' rights are enemies, and we are righteously justified in treating them as such. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
