|
|
|
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:
WA: Newhouse backs 2nd Amendment
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Our Constitution gives each of us rights that the government cannot infringe on! Congressman Dan Newhouse has been a fierce protector of our Second Amendment rights in D.C., which is why he has been endorsed by the NRA. But once again we see our constitutional rights under attack, this time by initiative Initiative 1639. This initiative has no public safety value - it just threatens the rights of responsible gun owners. If one of our constitutional rights, like the right to bear arms, can be stripped so easily, the rest can be stripped just as easily. We must protect our constitutional rights! We must vote “no” on I-1639 and yes to re-elect Dan Newhouse. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(10/26/2018)
|
"Our Constitution gives each of us rights..."
Every time I read or hear this I feel like throwing up. This particular nugget of ignorance is widely prevalent in the U.S., and it is fundamentally (though not obviously) dangerous. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
