|
|
|
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:
Elizabeth Warren Is Trying to Have It Both Ways
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
I see this all the time when discussing constitutional rights. “The First Amendment isn’t unlimited,” someone will say. “The Court has determined that some regulations are permissible.” And then, having stated this banal fact, they argue that we need the government to prosecute speakers whose words they consider hateful. It’s the same with the Second Amendment. “Scalia himself said that the right to be arms wasn’t infinite,” I will be assured. And then comes the proposal to ban almost every firearm in the country and embark upon a mass confiscation drive. The logic seems to be, “If something is allowed, then everything is. And that makes everything the same as something.” |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(8/17/2018)
|
| Pocahontas needs a poke in the hontas. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(8/17/2018)
|
Fauxcahontas is a socialist nut; she wants all businesses earning over 1 billion dollars controlled and regulated by government -- a government that couldn't run a profit from a lemonade stand.
She should keep prattling this, and opponent politicians should run it all over their political tv ads and radio blurbs now and again in 2020! |
|
|
| 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]. |
|
|
