|
|
|
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:
| Comment by:
xqqme
(1/10/2015)
|
What she seeks is a classic example of "prior restraint"... restriction of a Right based on the possibility only that one might abuse it.
This kind of thing has been declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS. Justice Hugo Black said in New York Times v. United States:
"[T]he injunction against the New York Times should have been vacated without oral argument when the cases were first presented ... violation of the First Amendment. ... When the Constitution was adopted, many people strongly opposed it because the document contained no Bill of Rights ... In response to an overwhelming public clamor, James Madison offered a series of amendments to satisfy citizens that these great liberties would remain safe ..."
Apply that logic to the 2nd.
|
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(1/10/2015)
|
| Many, (most?) psychologists agree "transference" is a valid description of behavior/thought demonstrated by individuals. The statements of Ms. Gunn-Barret as ascribed by Mr. Bach certainly seem a classic example of "transference". They certainly seem to me to be adequate reason to ensure this lady never gets near any firearm. And it poses some serious questions about permitting her to operate a motor vehicle or permitting her access to sharp objects. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908 [by an Indian extremist opposed to Gandhi's agreement with Smuts], whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defend me, I told him it was his duty to defend me even by using violence. Hence it was that I took part in the Boer War, the so-called Zulu Rebellion and [World War I]. Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor. — Mohandas K. Gandhi, Young India, August 11, 1920 from Fischer, Louis ed.,The Essential Gandhi, 1962 |
|
|
