|
|
|
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:
MSNBC Host: Banning Semi-Automatic Weapons Is the ‘Most Pro-Police Thing You Can Do’
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
MSNBC ‘s PoliticsNation host Al Sharpton on Saturday claimed banning semi-automatic weapons would be the "most pro-police" proposal Congress could come up with. "This president has always attacked those of us that questioned some police when there are things that we consider police going over the line," Sharpton said. "Banning automatic weapons, banning semi-automatic weapons, banning these kinds of military-style weapons is the most pro-police thing you can do because they are the first responders." |
| Comment by:
gariders
(8/12/2019)
|
does that mean that police get to keep their simi auto and I don't.
|
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(8/12/2019)
|
In March 2018, Sharpton claimed the Second Amendment doesn't protect the right of Americans to bear "AR-15s or assault weapons" because they didn't exist when the Constitution was written.
A bit behind the times, ain'tcha 'Reverend'?
"[T]he Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding." D.C. v. Heller (2008) |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
