|
|
|
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:
The New York Times's Dumb Second Amendment Argument
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Certainly, we can all agree governments should not be "changed for light and transient causes." But if, per America's founding document, it is our right and duty to cast off tyrannical governments, how does Rosenthal think that happens? Pillow fights? The founders's own example suggests a lot of guns would be involved. And the fact that these same men would later declare firearm ownership a God-given right should be an unsubtle clue to help connect the dots here. |
| Comment by:
teebonicus
(4/18/2015)
|
It's the current straw man erected to misrepresent Senator Cruz and Tea Party advocates as calling for an armed rebellion.
Neither he nor they have said any such thing.
But misrepresenting the opposition and knocking it down with "reasoned" arguments is the progressives' modus operandi.
They create a counterfeit image of whom they wish to attack that completely misrepresents them, then attack it. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
