|
|
|
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:
NE: Constitution needs an adjustment
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Let’s get down to basics. People kill people with guns. When the Second Amendment was written, guns were, primarily, muskets — not what we know as guns.
Almost the entire civilized world has limited guns, and the result has been fewer deaths by guns in each country. Simple, isn’t it?
The Constitution changes from time to time. Amendments can do that. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(11/10/2017)
|
Yet another oration delivered while standing on the soapbox of ignorance.
The 2A doesn't 'give' us the right, and repealing it would not and can not remove the right.
"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." (emphasis mine) - U.S. v. Cruikshank (1875) |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(11/10/2017)
|
"Fewer deaths by guns in each country."
Really?
How's that working in Mexico? Syria? Iraq? Afghanistan? Russia? Brazil? |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
