|
|
|
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:
The Second Amendment allows for more gun control than you think
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Some gun rights advocates have suggested that’s because lower courts have been thumbing their nose at Scalia’s opinion in an act of massive resistance akin to the South’s refusal to desegregate after Brown v. Board of Education.
But Scalia’s opinion made clear that the decision would leave untouched many “longstanding prohibitions” on the use of guns. In practice, courts have concluded that these prohibitions and others like them pass constitutional muster. Our research confirms, as other research has suggested, that most Second Amendment claims fail. We also find that most fail precisely because of limitations that Heller itself places on the right to bear arms. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(5/24/2018)
|
Against my original thoughts, critics of the Heller decision have been proven correct in their misgivings. That opinion left a huge hole in the 2A allowing for further encroachments.
"Shall not be infringed" has lost its meaning. Allowing bans some some more dangerous types of guns is only a loophole allowing even further bans, since there will always be a "next most dangerous" type of gun in line to be banned.
|
|
|
| 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]. |
|
|
