|
|
|
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:
'Permitless Carry' Bill Puts Kentuckians at Disadvantage
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://constitutionnetwork.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides U.S. citizens the right to bear arms. The amendment, adopted in 1791, reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” For nearly 228 years, Americans have been debating and arguing over its interpretation, meaning and whether it provides collective gun rights or individual gun rights.
|
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(2/25/2019)
|
| And, how much does it cost to exercise one's First Amendment rights in Kentucky? Must Kentucky residents pass a test in critical thinking, pay a fee and carry a certificate around at all times before being allowed to express an opinion or vote? Here's a hint: There ain't no "but" in the Second Amendment. |
| Comment by:
jac
(2/25/2019)
|
Why would it be a problem in Kentucky when it has not been a problem in the other 14 states that passed constitutional carry?
This is just another chicken little editorial not based on facts. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
