|
|
|
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:
A Legal Perspective on the Gun Control Debate
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
My question, then, is why can England, 329 years after the Declaration of Right, find in itself the strength and courage to change its gun laws so that it is virtually impossible for a civilian to own an AR-15 or even a handgun, but here in the United States, 230 years after the final ratification of our Constitution, we cannot? I believe this is because we are interpreting the Constitution incorrectly and pretending that its text cannot be changed.
Ed.: You can't argue to ban AR-15s while also saying the 2A protects the duty and right to have keep private arms suitable for military use. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/24/2018)
|
This treatise relies on the flawed premise that our rights are granted by men, while the core First Principle of this nation is that they are endowed by an authority higher than men (nature and nature’s god), hence men can have no legitimate mantle of authority to deny them.
As such, any ‘progressive’ arguments that dilute, attenuate or disregard those rights cannot prevail, ipso facto.
Sorry, ‘professor’. The central premise of ‘progressives’ that there is no line the government cannot cross if the ‘enlightened class’ deems it necessary is facially profane and fatal to individual liberty. |
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
