|
|
|
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:
Minnesota and Michigan show that we are living in a Hobbesian state of nature
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The union representing Minneapolis Police Officers has long felt that the democratically elected mayor, Jacob Frey, should not be the boss of them. Across the country, armed insurgent demonstrators have expressed similar feelings about their governors: In Michigan, a gang with assault weapons drove the state senators to abandon the capitol. Turns out, in uniform or out, white men with guns can pose a real problem for old-fashioned representative government. In attitudes and political loyalties, a scary number of the people professing to defend the government look more like the problem than the solution. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(5/30/2020)
|
"In attitudes and political loyalties, a scary number of the people professing to defend the government look more like the problem than the solution."
Weyulp, the premise is a false start, hence the rest is, perforce, BS.
It is their duty to defend the constitutions of both the nation and their states, and all laws made in pursuance thereof, NOT to 'defend the government.'
Herein, WaPo's anti-American, anti-constitutional, collectivist authoritarian bent is exposed for all to see.
Apparently those too-clever-by-half are obviously not quite clever enough to have recognized the blatant faux pas.
|
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
