|
|
|
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:
MT: Gun issues weighted down with partisanship
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Gun debates have especially succumbed to flagrant partisanship, with politicians so beholden to the party line that there is little room for conversation that deviates from “Second Amendment rights” on the one hand to “gun control at all costs” on the other. HB 102, which would permit campus concealed carry, follows this pattern, as evidenced by its passage in a straight party-line vote. The specter of the Second Amendment demands unthinking Republican support for all pro-gun positions, despite contravening evidence, common sense, or historical precedent. On all three levels, our elected representatives in the Montana Senate should oppose this bill. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(1/24/2021)
|
| Baloney. Gun issues are weighted by the Constitution's 2nd Amendment, and there is nothing (not even so-called "common sense") that can overcome the straightforward declaration of inalienability. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
