|
|
|
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:
IA: Rights can change outside the Constitution
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Kristina Botts assures us that a Clinton presidency would not endanger gun ownership thanks to congressional vote requirements [Second Amendment is not in peril]. Unfortunately, our constitutional rights are only as secure as the latest iteration of the Supreme Court allows them to be.
Some constitutional scholars estimate that 75 percent of federal activity is extra, or unconstitutional — all of it done without resorting to a constitutional convention. For example, federal meddling in education, health care, property rights, abortion, marriage, aspects of commerce, etc., were all achieved without specific enumeration in the Constitution. |
| Comment by:
xqqme
(8/25/2016)
|
Tru dat. The Fourth Amendment is gone, now that the gub-mint passed that oh-bummer-care. They gits to see all my medical records and stuff, courtesy of the same political sector that pushed for the "right of privacy" when killing off unborn chilluns by they mamas' abortion docs.
I dunno how they can juxtapose them two diametrically opposed principles in they heads, but mebbe it because they got no principles excepting tellin other folk how they gots to live. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. — James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]. |
|
|
