|
|
|
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:
CA: Trump would protect guns before people
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
“The Constitution of the United States is clear,” Trump said in a statement to the Post. “The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period. … Through the process of national gun registering, lawful gun owners will have their privacy invaded and will place information in the hands of government officials that could be easily abused.”
So the Second Amendment trumps safety and security concerns when it comes to registering guns but singling out certain Americans and refugees because of their religion for tracking and spying on houses of worship doesn’t raise any First Amendment issues? Does he believe a religious-based registry could never lend itself to any kind of abuse? |
| Comment by:
JimB
(11/27/2015)
|
| Owning or carrying a fire arm for your own protection and to prevent dictator governments is what the second Amendment is about. Anyone that believes registration is a safety concern is a MORON! Registration has always been a prelude to ultimate goal of confiscation. This has always lead to increased crime rates, especially MURDER. How is that an improvement on safety? |
|
|
| 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| "Some people think that the Second Amendment is an outdated relic of an earlier time. Doubtless some also think that constitutional protections of other rights are outdated relics of earlier times.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 For those who believe it to be outdated, the Second Amendment provides a good test of whether their allegiance is really to the Constitution of the United States, or only to their preferences in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) |
|
|
