|
|
|
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:
MN: A Constitutional law professor breaks down Second Amendment after gun owner’s group sues Minnesota State Fair
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Professor David Schultz points to the 1981 Supreme Court case, District of Columbia v. Heller, for clarification on whether or not anyone's rights are being infringed upon.
"What the court said in that opinion is that the individual right to bear arms is historically grounded either in a right to have a gun in our house to protect ourselves or that right to have a gun for the purposes of hunting," said Schultz.
Schultz says the court in the Heller case never said we have an unlimited right to carry guns at any place or at any time. He also says certain restrictions can still be put in place when it comes to the right to bear arms.
Ed.: Wow. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(8/12/2021)
|
This 'constitutional law professor' ain't worth his sheepskin.
First, D.C. v. Heller was a 2008 ruling, not 1981. That in itself should tell you what a charlatan this idiot is. Next comes the laughable assertion that Heller guaranteed only possession of firearms in the home for defense, or for hunting. In the first paragraph of the holding, the Court ruled that keeping and bearing arms for lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, was protected. It in fact guaranteed a slate of lawful uses, presumably including hunting, and certainly not limited to the two purposes this ideologue claims.
This, dear friends, is what passes for 'scholarship' on the left.
Depressing. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908 [by an Indian extremist opposed to Gandhi's agreement with Smuts], whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defend me, I told him it was his duty to defend me even by using violence. Hence it was that I took part in the Boer War, the so-called Zulu Rebellion and [World War I]. Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor. — Mohandas K. Gandhi, Young India, August 11, 1920 from Fischer, Louis ed.,The Essential Gandhi, 1962 |
|
|
