|
|
|
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:
| Comment by:
xqqme
(1/10/2015)
|
What she seeks is a classic example of "prior restraint"... restriction of a Right based on the possibility only that one might abuse it.
This kind of thing has been declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS. Justice Hugo Black said in New York Times v. United States:
"[T]he injunction against the New York Times should have been vacated without oral argument when the cases were first presented ... violation of the First Amendment. ... When the Constitution was adopted, many people strongly opposed it because the document contained no Bill of Rights ... In response to an overwhelming public clamor, James Madison offered a series of amendments to satisfy citizens that these great liberties would remain safe ..."
Apply that logic to the 2nd.
|
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(1/10/2015)
|
| Many, (most?) psychologists agree "transference" is a valid description of behavior/thought demonstrated by individuals. The statements of Ms. Gunn-Barret as ascribed by Mr. Bach certainly seem a classic example of "transference". They certainly seem to me to be adequate reason to ensure this lady never gets near any firearm. And it poses some serious questions about permitting her to operate a motor vehicle or permitting her access to sharp objects. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| "Some people think that the Second Amendment is an outdated relic of an earlier time. Doubtless some also think that constitutional protections of other rights are outdated relics of earlier times. We The People own those rights regardless, unless and until We The People repeal them. For those who believe it to be outdated, the Second Amendment provides a good test of whether their allegiance is really to the Constitution of the United States, or only to their preferences in public policies and audiences. The Constitution is law, not vague aspirations, and we are obligated to protect, defend, and apply it. If the Second Amendment were truly an outdated relic, the Constitution provides a method for repeal. The Constitution does not furnish the federal courts with an eraser." --9th Circuit Court Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, dissenting opinion in which the court refused to rehear the case while citing deeply flawed anti-Second Amendment nonsense (Nordyke v. King; opinion filed April 5, 2004) |
|
|
