|
|
|
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:
Ted Cruz: What the Times Doesn’t Get about the Second Amendment
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
Website: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"On Friday, the New York Times stated, in a blaring headline, that my support for Second Amendment rights is 'strange.'"
"In particular, the writer took issue with my statement that 'the Second Amendment to the Constitution isn’t for just protecting hunting rights, and it’s not only to safeguard your right to target practice. It is a constitutional right to protect your children, your family, your home, our lives, and to serve as the ultimate check against governmental tyranny — for the protection of liberty.'"
"In addition to 'strange,' the NYT described this view as 'ridiculous,' 'silly,' and 'absurd' (methinks the Old Gray Lady doth protest too much)." ... |
| Comment by:
-none-
(4/20/2015)
|
lindsay graham doesn't get it either...on fox sunday with chris wallace saying the (very) last option for a populace is an informed electorate rather than, as Cruz stated, the 2A ...which lindsay characterizes as "people coming out on the streets with guns to solve problems"...his claim to want to run was the most halfhearted attempt at explanation ever seen, as if he thinks it's a joke, and 'he still has to assemble/arrange a platform/action plan'.
|
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
