|
|
|
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:
David Codrea: Case SCOTUS Didn’t Hear Points to Larger Concern for Gun Owners
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
Website: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"The fallout from two recent Supreme Court rulings is receiving needed attention, as it’s up to activist gun owners to keep apprised of looming threats and opportunities, and to minimize damage/maximize gains of case outcomes. For one decision, Gun Owners of America has been at the forefront of warning against the anti-gun dangers hidden in Obamacare. On the flip side, some are looking at the same sex marriage ruling to prompt states to recognize concealed carry permits. But as important as those concerns are, they may ultimately become moot points if a case SCOTUS declined to hear is an indicator of things to come . . ." ... |
| Comment by:
Longenecker
(7/4/2015)
|
The significance of David's report is that non-gun owners really have no idea of how anti-gun attitudes have adversely affected their households adversely. Too many Americans think all we do is guns, guns guns; maybe they're right!
That has to change if we're really going to protect the nation's interest through due process and non-violently - an issue of worry for many laymen.
|
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
