|
|
|
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:
Restrict gun ownership to stem violence
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
John Paul Stevens, a justice of the Supreme Court from 1975 to 2010, wrote an interesting book, “Six Amendments” which included a study of the Second Amendment. To review a little background, on April 19, 1775, with the British troops marching toward Concord, Massachusetts, to take away the muskets from the troublesome colonists, the colonists rose instead to the occasion and thus started the Revolutionary War. With the Constitution and Amendments enacted in 1789, the concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of the Second Amendment... |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(6/9/2021)
|
It'd be nice if just one of these Mensa members understood that because of our Constitution, YOU CAN'T DO THAT.
The second question is, "Will it work?"
The FIRST question is, "is it constitutional?"
Without an affirmative answer to the first, there ISN'T any second. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
