|
|
|
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:
Host on The View: If a Criminal Has an AR-15, Why Shouldn’t I?
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
During the April 7 airing of ABC’s The View, host Jedediah Bila countered anti-gun arguments by asking why law-abiding citizens should be denied an AR-15 if the criminal who attacks them is armed with one?
Bila’s comments followed Whoopi Goldberg’s assertion that Sandy Hook families are suing Bushmaster for advertising AR-15s as “a normal gun for regular people.” She said people involved in the case are looking at the gun from another perspective, saying “It should only be used by the military.” |
| Comment by:
dasing
(4/8/2016)
|
| The military uses select fire(machine gun/semiauto) rifles they are not going to go semiauto only ! ! That option is for the common people ! |
| Comment by:
laker1
(4/8/2016)
|
| So we the people need to be at a disadvantage when confronted by criminals with illegal weapons. Only cops are the super civilians that can have equal weapons to criminals |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(4/8/2016)
|
| I wish these jackwagons in the media would get a clue about the difference between guns that are issued to soldiers, and which are owned by Uncle Sam, and what us ****can buy at Sam's Sporting Goods, is. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
