|
|
|
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 Second Amendment allows for more gun control than you think
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Some gun rights advocates have suggested that’s because lower courts have been thumbing their nose at Scalia’s opinion in an act of massive resistance akin to the South’s refusal to desegregate after Brown v. Board of Education.
But Scalia’s opinion made clear that the decision would leave untouched many “longstanding prohibitions” on the use of guns. In practice, courts have concluded that these prohibitions and others like them pass constitutional muster. Our research confirms, as other research has suggested, that most Second Amendment claims fail. We also find that most fail precisely because of limitations that Heller itself places on the right to bear arms. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(5/24/2018)
|
Against my original thoughts, critics of the Heller decision have been proven correct in their misgivings. That opinion left a huge hole in the 2A allowing for further encroachments.
"Shall not be infringed" has lost its meaning. Allowing bans some some more dangerous types of guns is only a loophole allowing even further bans, since there will always be a "next most dangerous" type of gun in line to be banned.
|
|
|
| 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]. |
|
|
