|
|
|
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:
Kasich Spits on the Second Amendment
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://keepandbeararms.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The Heller decision, confirming that the Second Amendment acknowledges an individual right to keep and bear arms, written by the late Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia was in many respects the Roberts court’s finest hour.
In its acknowledgment that rights are inherent, not granted by government Heller is constitutional originalism at its finest and Scalia at his incisive and eloquent best. |
| Comment by:
-none-
(3/21/2016)
|
and he likes to cuss when he breaks the law: foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/17/kasich-earns-ire-public-safety-groups-calling-traffic-cop-idiot.html
ohio, a strange amalgam of liberalism-he is/was super popular w/ RINOs here in WA
-
youtube.com/watch?v=OVXBnz45cvA
Terror's New Weapon of Choice
Mar 16, 2016
Stones, knives, cars, and now guns. With shooting attacks on the rise, the IDF has uncovered many assembled weapons intended for terror.
"Every gun confiscated today, is a life saved tomorrow"....true with islum, and don't...shouldn't...slack on battlefield pressure, allows enemy buildup, but here we have Reform tikkun olam Rabbi's attending Hillary's events and dissing Trump, trying to pull a race card w/o their name or pic on 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) |
|
|
