|
|
|
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:
Compromise
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” It’s one of the best lines in the classic movie “The Princess Bride,” but it’s also what immediately comes to mind every time I read an anti-gun opinion piece that attempts to mask its gun control agenda under the banner of “compromise.” Rarely do these pieces ever offer any sort of real compromise on the part of the anti-gun activists. Instead, their “compromise” seems to be along the lines of “we’ll let you own a gun or two, maybe. You might be able to use it in your home for self-defense, but forget about carrying it. Oh, and we don’t want gun stores in our communities. No gun ranges, either. But we’re not anti-Second Amendment.” |
| Comment by:
jughead
(12/14/2017)
|
| if we compromise we always lose something we already have. NO MORE COMPROMISE. they always gain |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
