|
|
|
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:
Will Hillary Clinton Take Away Our Guns?
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The next president will probably have the chance to appoint a few Supreme Court justices. How would a new court affect gun issues?
There are quite a few [active] cases dealing with gun issues. If the Supreme Court was prepared to overturn the Heller case [which established that people had the right to own handguns], and declare there was no right to bear arms in the Constitution, they're gonna have plenty of opportunities to do that. My sense is that the justices are unlikely to overturn Heller. I think there's a considerable fear among the liberal justices that such a ruling would cause a backlash that would lead to possibly even a constitutional amendment providing even stronger protections. |
| Comment by:
Sosalty
(10/3/2016)
|
| So, it's OK to roll the dice and go way... out there taking that sort of chance with Hillary? |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(10/3/2016)
|
I hate to say this, but it's looking more and more like Hillary is going to be the president. In a just world she'd be in prison now for her e-mail/classified materials scandal, but we're living in a post-justice country.
Keep your powder dry.
And remember to thank BOTH the demorat party chiefs and the repukeagain party chiefs for BOTH nominating the dirtiest, dankest, DREGS of their party system for office. |
| Comment by:
dasing
(10/4/2016)
|
| She can TRY, we have the mumbers. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
