|
|
|
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:
CA: NRA should support defining Second Amendment
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
For too long, the NRA has expended every drop of energy to its pathological demonization of gun control at every turn. Instead of that, and its disgusting meaningless lip service to gun violence victims every time we see another Sandy Hook, the NRA might take after Keene, act like human beings, and use its resources to start participating in some form of rational discussion. I won't hold my breath. |
| Comment by:
dasing
(12/23/2016)
|
| There is no such thing as rational discussion with gun banners! |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(12/23/2016)
|
| NRA publications have posted many articles discussing the meaning of the second amendment. The PROBLEM here is not that the NRA, or other pro-rights organizations, have no definition of the amendment in question, the PROBLEM is that the anti-rights activists and their kin refuse to accept the plain meaning of the words and try to lie, by turning it into some mythical "collective right" by misinterpreting the first clause which mentions a "well-regulated militia." |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
