|
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:
IA: Rights can change outside the Constitution
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Kristina Botts assures us that a Clinton presidency would not endanger gun ownership thanks to congressional vote requirements [Second Amendment is not in peril]. Unfortunately, our constitutional rights are only as secure as the latest iteration of the Supreme Court allows them to be.
Some constitutional scholars estimate that 75 percent of federal activity is extra, or unconstitutional — all of it done without resorting to a constitutional convention. For example, federal meddling in education, health care, property rights, abortion, marriage, aspects of commerce, etc., were all achieved without specific enumeration in the Constitution. |
Comment by:
xqqme
(8/25/2016)
|
Tru dat. The Fourth Amendment is gone, now that the gub-mint passed that oh-bummer-care. They gits to see all my medical records and stuff, courtesy of the same political sector that pushed for the "right of privacy" when killing off unborn chilluns by they mamas' abortion docs.
I dunno how they can juxtapose them two diametrically opposed principles in they heads, but mebbe it because they got no principles excepting tellin other folk how they gots to live. |
|
|
QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908 [by an Indian extremist opposed to Gandhi's agreement with Smuts], whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defend me, I told him it was his duty to defend me even by using violence. Hence it was that I took part in the Boer War, the so-called Zulu Rebellion and [World War I]. Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor. — Mohandas K. Gandhi, Young India, August 11, 1920 from Fischer, Louis ed.,The Essential Gandhi, 1962 |
|
|