|
|
|
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 |
| Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people. — Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697]. |
|
|
