|
|
|
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:
Want to End Urban-Rural Conflict? Stop Looking for a Victor.
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
There's a spreading revolt against city-spawned restrictions on self-defense rights by the residents of sparsely settled counties and the officials who represent them. The issue "has largely underscored the rift between rural and urban areas," the Wall Street Journal noted over the weekend. It's a rift that's widening as the political divide in the United States takes on a strongly geographical character—less along state or regional lines than at the borders between dense populations and open country. |
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(3/14/2019)
|
| The only conflict is Criminals vs. Law Enforcement. Stop trying to somehow make law abiding citizens responsible for the actions of criminals. Regardless of geographical character, the end result is the same. It's the Criminals....Not the Law Abiding.... |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/15/2019)
|
There's one thing you're ignoring. Fundamental rights are universal, and cannot be attenuated by political policies, be they national, state or local.
Period.
"We know of no . . . enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding 'interest-balancing' approach. . . Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad." - - D.C. v. Heller (2008)
And whether or not county boards or local councils think that scope too broad, as well. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/15/2019)
|
And, oh yeah -
"[T]he enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table." - D.C. v. Heller (2008) |
|
|
| 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]. |
|
|
