|
|
|
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:
TX: Demonstrations on behalf of ‘open carry’ gun rights have some limits
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
So I think I understand the support for gun rights and legislation that is being pursued across Texas and locally.
But there’s one thing I don’t understand. That would be the practice of marching up and down public streets, demonstrating at City Hall and assembling at the state Capitol with all kinds of long guns — including military-style ones — strapped over shoulders and otherwise being bandied around.
So, I thought I would show up at a recent demonstration in downtown Arlington and see if I could learn more about why some activists are compelled to fully arm themselves and dress up like vigilantes to get their points across. |
| Comment by:
sheldonsthomas
(1/17/2015)
|
| While I do not agree with the political prudence of the open carry demonstrations, I must disagree that a "sense of personal security" is a right as alleged by the author. The Constitution does not address a "sense of personal security". |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
