|
|
|
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:
FL: Repeal the Second Amendment? Point-counterpoint
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Did anyone ever imagine that a retired justice of the U.S. Supreme Court would one day advocate for the repeal of one of the 10 provisions in the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution?
Yet in the wake of shootings and deaths at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in February, it has come to that: After students and others protested throughout the nation to demand restrictions on firearms, retired Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that protesters should go further and seek to repeal the Second Amendment, which protects the right to bear arms. |
| Comment by:
mickey
(4/13/2018)
|
Point/Counterpoint, Whorelando Sentinel version:
A gun grabber from the ACLU squares off against a gun grabber from the Catholic Church on whether we need to repeal the 2nd Amendment or if it's OK to just keep violating it without bothering to repeal it.
The ACLU's Howard Simon says, basically, that the 2A is subject to 'reasonable restrictions', while implying that there's no such thing as an 'unreasonable restriction'. Therefore, why try to repeal something that doesn't impede socialist goals in the first place, and can't be repealed at the present time anyway? Yep, that's the Sentinel's choice for the 'pro gun' side of the 'debate'. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| There are other things so clearly out of the power of Congress, that the bare recital of them is sufficient, I mean the "...rights of bearing arms for defence, or for killing game..." These things seem to have been inserted among their objections, merely to induce the ignorant to believe that Congress would have a power over such objects and to infer from their being refused a place in the Constitution, their intention to exercise that power to the oppression of the people. —ALEXANDER WHITE (1787) |
|
|
