Why It's Time to Repeal the Second Amendment [More]That, of course, would have no bearing on the RIGHT to keep and bear arms -- even the Supreme Court has had no choice (so far) but to acknowledge:
The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed …Figures, this Opposite Day "progressive" fraud brags that he "teach[es] the Constitution for a living." In other words, he misdirects his ignorant young victim to con them out of their birthrights and into his collectivist cult.
Things are getting incredibly dangerous. We may be finding out which of us are meatspace-serious sooner than we've been dreading will happen.
Those who poured gasoline on the flames they lit need to be remembered.
[Via Michael G]
2 comments:
"Those who poured gasoline on the flames they lit need to be remembered."
David, I wonder if you have considered reminding people of the real assault weapon used in the highest mass murder body count, the Happy Land nightclub murder? Weapon: gasoline.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/dozens-die-fire-illegal-bonx-social-club-1990-article-1.2152091
Pretty much.
Liberals say "no one wants to take your guns--and oh, by the way, we're planning to take your guns."
There's a troll who calls himself "Highlander" in the comment thread, who posts over and over that possession of a firearm should carry a penalty of death by lethal injection. For some reason Rolling Stone removed my response that any attempt to carry out such a policy was likely to result in the would-be enforcers getting lethal injections of lead.
Post a Comment