|
|
|
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:
kangpc
(9/3/2016)
|
Two sociologists get together for a conversation and decide to revive this dead horse and beat on it some more.
The inherent human right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in and protected by the Second Amendment to our Constitution.
Driving a vehicle on the public roads is generally accepted to be a privilege subject to state control.
But just as every valid driver's license issued in our country is accepted as legitimate by every state, so too must every weapons permit issued in this country be recognized by every state.
Otherwise our federal system begins to crumble and collapse.
So let the politically driven sociologists retreat to their cave and continue their verbal onanism. But pay them no heed. |
| Comment by:
jac
(9/4/2016)
|
Sounds reasonable.
You don't need a drivers license or background check to buy an automobile.
You do not need a driver's license unless you want to drive said vehicle on public roads.
You do not have to license or register a vehicle unless you want to drive it on public roads.
A drivers license is valid in all 50 states.
You can buy a car if you are a convicted felon.
There are no restrictions on horsepower or how fast a car can go. Therefore, there should be no limits on automatic weapons. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
