A Quote by Dana Loesch

I view it as a threat to my and my family's well-being whenever anyone seeks to erode or take away my Second Amendment civil liberty. — © Dana Loesch
I view it as a threat to my and my family's well-being whenever anyone seeks to erode or take away my Second Amendment civil liberty.
Civil liberty is only natural liberty, modified and secured by the sanctions of civil society. It is not a thing, in its own nature, precarious and dependent on human will and caprice; but it is conformable to the constitution of man, as well as necessary to the well-being of society.
Without either the first or second amendment, we would have no liberty; the first allows us to find out what's happening, the second allows us to do something about it! The second will be taken away first, followed by the first and then the rest of our freedoms.
I'm not up for changing the Tenth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment or the Second Amendment.
I'm not up for changing the 10th amendment or the 14th amendment, the first amendment or the second amendment.
If you're too dangerous to buy an airplane ticket, you're too dangerous to buy an assault weapon. And, when we talk about the Second Amendment - I support the Second Amendment - but the Second Amendment was created and designed to prevent tyranny and not to encourage terror.
Just as the First and Fourth Amendment secure individual rights of speech and security respectively, the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. This view of the text comports with the all but unanimous understanding of the Founding Fathers.
What a lot the media, and especially Fox News, has messed up with me is they've made it seem like I'm trying to take away people's guns - that I'm against the Second Amendment.
I strongly support the Second Amendment and I believe the Second Amendment ought to be preserved - which means no gun control.
The Second Amendment only protects the people who want all the guns they can have. The rest of us, we've got no Second Amendment. What are we supposed to do?
We are going to appoint justices ­­ this is the best way to help the Second Amendment. We are going to appoint justices that will feel very strongly about the Second Amendment, that will not do damage to the Second Amendment.
We need a Supreme Court that in my opinion is going to uphold the Second Amendment, and all amendments, but the Second Amendment, which is under absolute siege.
The threshold question in a Second Amendment challenge is one of scope: whether the Second Amendment protects the person, the weapon, or the activity in the first place.
The American Civil Liberties Union has a reputation for serving as a 'guardian of liberty,' protecting our privacy and the First Amendment rights of speech, association and assembly.
There is no question that under the Equal Rights Amendment there will be debates at times, indecision at times, litigation at times. Has anyone proposed that we rescind the First Amendment on free speech because there is too much litigation over it? Has anyone suggested the same for the Fourteenth Amendment I don't suppose there has ever been a constitutional amendment with so much litigation?
And I hear from time to time people say, hey, wait a second, we have civil liberties we have to worry about. But don't forget the most important civil liberty I expect from my government is my right to be kept alive, and that's what we're going to have to do.
Folks in the media ask at the behest of Democrats, "isn't it insensitive for us to do a Second Amendment rally following this terror attack?" Let me tell you something. I really don't view our job as being sensitive to Islamic terrorists.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!