|
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:
IL: Advisory referendum to seek repeal of 2nd Amendment in Oak Park Township
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A longtime Oak Park resident and college professor is hoping to start a conversation about gun control by seeking support to abolish the Second Amendment.
A non-binding referendum appearing on Oak Park Township ballots in November will ask voters if the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution should be repealed, with future gun licensing and regulation to be taken up by Congress.
The referendum question will read: "Shall the Constitution of the United States be amended as follows? The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed. The United States Congress shall regulate the licensing and use of arms." |
Comment by:
PHORTO
(10/8/2016)
|
This guy is a law professor?
Hey professor; what about THIS?
"The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose'. This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." - U.S. v. Cruikshank (1875)
The right doesn't exist because of the Second Amendment, the Second Amendment exists because of the right. |
Comment by:
netsyscon
(10/8/2016)
|
How about this dialogue. YOUR FIRED!!!. |
|
|
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) |
|
|