|
|
|
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:
TX: Verify: Are there legitimate reasons to own an AR-15?
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Allyson, is a Verify viewer from North Richland Hills who is politically conservative. On this Verify Road Trip going to see what I see, ask her own questions and reach her own conclusion.
“I feel like people should have the right to own guns,” Allyson says, when we first meet.
But as mom with four little kids, the AR-15 scares her.
“We have all of these other avenues for hunting and for sport. So why does it have to be the AR-15?” Allyson wants to know. |
| Comment by:
jughead
(5/3/2018)
|
| dont need a reason gun ownership is not just about hunting.where in the bill of rights does it say anything about needs |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(5/3/2018)
|
Yes, there are.
"I want one." THERE IS THE ONLY REASON I NEED.
Btw, I already own 4.
Message to Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein, and her ilk:
BITE ME! |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
