|
|
|
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:
TX: Strict Interpretation
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
When someone cites “The Second Amendment” we are supposed to bow our heads in some sort of divine reverence. When someone says we don’t want to infringe on the rights of “law-abiding citizens” we are supposed to recognize their undefined minority rights over our right to not be killed by guns in school, at the theater or just going about our daily lives. The Second Amendment is specific about the rights it is talking about. It isn’t hunting.
We should pass a federal law which prohibits anyone to own a gun unless they can demonstrate a need based upon self-defense. |
| Comment by:
lucky5eddie
(10/10/2019)
|
| Links to the wrong story. A good story, but not the one advertised. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(10/10/2019)
|
| Wrong link. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(10/10/2019)
|
Based upon the synopsis, I say, get a life. We have the right, the Framers identified and codified it, it isn't granted by government and government cannot remove it, so....
...GET LOST. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
