|
|
|
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:
With Gun Laws, We Can Profit from Australia’s Example
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://keepandbeararms.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The National Rifle Association and its supporters base their support of open gun laws on our Second Amendment.
Judge Antonin Scalia, whose opinion changed the court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment and dictated a much-looser reading of the amendment, based his opinion on his evaluation of the minds of the writers of the Constitution when the amendment was written. This was in accordance with his own historical interpretation — which ignored prior case law and allowed an experienced debater like Scalia to justify his decision regardless of past legal precedent |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(5/4/2016)
|
There were two comments on this article.
They were "pending approval".
Neither were disrespectful nor vulgar.
They will not be "approved".
Wonder WHY....? |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
