|
|
|
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:
If we want gun safety in America, Brett Kavanaugh will not help us
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Unlike some other constitutional questions, we do not have to guess how Judge Kavanaugh would approach challenges to gun regulations, because he laid out his views in a dissenting opinion in a 2011 case known as Heller II. Those views are outside the mainstream of judicial thought about the Second Amendment. If they prevail on the Supreme Court, they threaten to invalidate a wide range of some of the most important and effective gun safety regulations at the federal, state, and local levels. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(9/1/2018)
|
Eric Tirschwell, an antigun prosecutor, wrote this dribble.
20,000+ gun laws in America, and we still have evil criminals about killing innocents. All those "gun safety" laws are working so beautifully well.
|
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(9/1/2018)
|
"[Kavanaugh's] views are outside the mainstream of judicial thought about the Second Amendment."
SCOTUS precedent determines the mainstream of judicial thought, you schmuck.
And if your inane assertion were correct, then the 'mainstream of judicial thought' would be out-of-sync with the Superme Court of the United States. Lower courts thumbing their noses at SCOTUS precedent does not the mainstream make.
That's not the way constitutional jurisprudence works in this country, and you know it.
What kind of lawyer ARE you, anyway? |
| Comment by:
jac
(9/1/2018)
|
If your premises are correct, why has the crime rate gone down in the last 10 years as the number of guns has gone up?
Don't confuse liberals with facts. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| "Some people think that the Second Amendment is an outdated relic of an earlier time. Doubtless some also think that constitutional protections of other rights are outdated relics of earlier times. We The People own those rights regardless, unless and until We The People repeal them. For those who believe it to be outdated, the Second Amendment provides a good test of whether their allegiance is really to the Constitution of the United States, or only to their preferences in public policies and audiences. The Constitution is law, not vague aspirations, and we are obligated to protect, defend, and apply it. If the Second Amendment were truly an outdated relic, the Constitution provides a method for repeal. The Constitution does not furnish the federal courts with an eraser." --9th Circuit Court Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, dissenting opinion in which the court refused to rehear the case while citing deeply flawed anti-Second Amendment nonsense (Nordyke v. King; opinion filed April 5, 2004) |
|
|
