|
|
|
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:
IL: The Second Amendment isn't sacred
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
It's time to repeal the Second Amendment. Replace it with an amendment that will restrict the ownership of guns to members of the military, police forces, national guards and other state-sanctioned legitimate groups that have been entrusted by the states with the important responsibility of maintaining the safety and security of all citizens. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(10/7/2016)
|
Re: Title
Oh, yes it is. All of our fundamental individual rights are sacred, having been endowed by our Creator.
Re: repealing the Second Amendment
The right doesn't exist because of the Second Amendment, the Second Amendment exists because of the right.
"The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose'. This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." - U.S v. Cruikshank (1875) |
| Comment by:
lostone1413
(10/7/2016)
|
| The only thing stopping the gun grabbers is they know allot of guns will come bullets first At least I hope they would |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
