|
|
|
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 Supreme Court Should Back Firearms Restraints That Save Lives
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
At my county coroner’s office, I regularly review cases of murdered women. They are victims of domestic violence, overwhelmingly ones shot to death by ex-husbands, ex-boyfriends or other men they knew. The Supreme Court is now poised to decide whether to put guns more easily into the hands of these abusers-turned-murderers, which would enshrine domestic violence as a warped historical privilege of the U.S. Constitution. Or the Court can make the lifesaving and legally sound decision and protect people such as the murder victims—mothers, daughters and children—I see in those case files. |
| Comment by:
PP9
(7/20/2023)
|
No, they should not. Their only power is to adjudicate what the US Constitution says. All of their decisions need to be based ONLY on what is in the Constitution. Nothing else, at all, ever.
The US Constitution says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. "Infringed" is a very specific word, containing the word "fringe," meaning the very outside edge of the thing in question. To infringe something is to just barely cross the threshold of that thing.
There is a reason the founders used this word specifically. No one in government should attempt to approach the outermost extreme of limiting a person's right to keep and bear arms. To do so is to infringe that right, which is specifically prohibited.
|
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| There are other things so clearly out of the power of Congress, that the bare recital of them is sufficient, I mean the "...rights of bearing arms for defence, or for killing game..." These things seem to have been inserted among their objections, merely to induce the ignorant to believe that Congress would have a power over such objects and to infer from their being refused a place in the Constitution, their intention to exercise that power to the oppression of the people. —ALEXANDER WHITE (1787) |
|
|
