|
|
|
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:
Background Checks Do Not Infringe on Our Rights
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
In his Sept. 18 column, Dave Skinner once again missed the mark. With his all too common complaint about how the federal government can’t do anything right, Mr. Skinner now targets firearm background checks. Rather than celebrate that background checks kept 181,000 firearms from being sold to criminals last year he lambasts the federal government for not prosecuting the offenders. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(9/28/2019)
|
No comment provision on that site.
The writer thinks that if a constitutional violation that doesn't bother him is so small as to be no big deal, he needs a good smack.
There is no, like ZERO, authority delegated to the federal government in the Constitution to regulate private sales of firearms or anything else.
If he wants his state to enact them and it doesn't violate its own constitution, well, have at it.\
But at least know WTF is happening, and why or why not. |
| Comment by:
AFRet
(9/28/2019)
|
| Hey dude, how about a backround check on fools like you before you are allowed to write an article like this...sounds good to me. |
| Comment by:
lbauer
(9/28/2019)
|
OK, then how about a common sense background check before anyone can cast a vote in a federal election.
Right to vote and right to bear arms both protected by the constitution, so shouldn't be a problem now should 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) |
|
|
