|
|
|
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:
CO: Do we really need assault weapons for self-defense?
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
But legislatures, subject to judicial review, should be free to distinguish between the sorts of guns that are suitable for self-defense and those which exceed the requirements of self-defense, and which are regularly used to spread terror and anguish throughout the land.
In 2013, Colorado banned ammunition-feeding devices over 15 rounds. In 2020, Rocky Mountain Gun Owners challenged that regulation, but the Colorado Supreme Court upheld it. “The overwhelming evidence demonstrated that limiting magazine capacity to 15 rounds does not significantly interfere with the core of Coloradans’ … rights to bear arms in self-defense,” the justices wrote. |
| Comment by:
PP9
(5/29/2023)
|
Where in the Second Amendment do you get the idea that it is primarily about self-defense?
You lefties like to keep bringing up the explanatory clause that mentions the 'well-regulated militia' when you erroneously think it benefits you (because you think the militia is something we have to actively join), but that clause does not mean what you think it does.
Militia weapons are by definition weapons of war, and we're all in the militia by virtue of being Americans. If called upon, we are expected to show up with our own military weapons that we are disciplined and practiced with ("well-regulated," in other words).
Not only are weapons of war protected by the 2A, but in fact they are the only weapons that are (US vs Miller, 1939). |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
