|
|
|
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 |
| 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) |
|
|
