|
|
|
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 Common Sense Approach to the Second Amendment
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
In simple terms, we could boil the argument down to three kinds of people: law abiding citizens, the mentally ill and criminals.
As a member of group one, I don’t object to having a background check or a waiting period before buying a gun. I do, however, object to registering a gun because a list of gun owners in the wrong hands diminishes the power of having the weapon. It was much easier for the Nazis to round up the Jews because they could identify them. And President Obama’s most recent legislation forcing citizens to submit fingerprints and photos to federal authorities when setting up a trust to obtain items such as silencers feels like a slippery slope. |
| Comment by:
laker1
(4/22/2016)
|
| You obviously won't therefore object to my uncle the sheriff and I coming into your house by surprise to see if there is illegal child porn on your computer. You know, if you have nothing to hide while exercising the 1st Amendment you must prove your innocent. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
