|
|
|
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:
FL: Is Obama a Threat to the 2nd Amendment?
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
After Barack Obama announced such steps as tightening enforcement of federal regulations on gun sales, Donald Trump lamented, "He's taking chunks and chunks out of the Second Amendment." Ted Cruz said the measures are "unconstitutional."
They overlook two critical facts. The first is that if Obama adopts any policy that abridges the right to keep and bear arms, the Supreme Court will deep-six it. The second is that almost none of what he is doing offends the Second Amendment. |
| Comment by:
xqqme
(1/9/2016)
|
Supreme Court deep-sixing infringements... yeah, like they tossed the GCA of 38, the GCA of 68, licensing of constitutional rights....
Need I go on with the list of unconstitutional acts at all levels of government that the Supreme Court has let stand? |
| Comment by:
laker1
(1/9/2016)
|
| Obamacare, amnesty, open borders, refugees, etc. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
