|
|
|
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:
SC: It’s the right, not the gun
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
This week the Senate Judiciary Committee passed a bill that would allow individuals filing for bankruptcy to keep up to three guns worth up to $3,000 total.
In South Carolina, bankruptcy filers are allowed to keep a home, car, tools of a trade, and so on, up to a certain value. While a case can be made for some kinds of exceptions, the purpose of the bankruptcy process is for the debtor to pay whatever reasonably can be paid toward debts that exceed assets, and then start over with the bare necessities.
Sounds good, right? The creditor gets the short end of the stick, but you can’t get blood out of a turnip, and the turnip, to bend a phrase, will have a much harder time starting over without work or shelter. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(5/6/2017)
|
If one is honest, one cannot argue with that treatise.
As painful as it may be, it is spot on. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
