|
|
|
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:
Ben Carson's take on the Constitution is odd
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Carson really doesn’t like gun control. Offering a more elaborate version of his widely publicized remarks on CNN, he writes that “German citizens were disarmed by their government in the late 1930s, and by the mid-1940s Hitler’s regime had mercilessly slaughtered six million Jews and numerous others whom they considered inferior.”
He thinks that the Second Amendment protects assault rifles and armor-penetrating ammunition, because the “intent” of the amendment is to protect people’s freedom from government, which means that they “have a right to any type of weapon that they can legally obtain in order to protect themselves.” That’s an extraordinary view, and Carson offers no historical evidence on its behalf. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(10/31/2015)
|
| Being an extreme leftist, Cass Sunstein is hardly a reliable source for a valid opinion on what defines "odd" viz constitutional interpretation. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)] |
|
|
