|
|
|
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:
Is there a Second Amendment right to semiautomatic rifles?
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Meet the Press host Chuck Todd did a double-take after House Speaker Paul Ryan made a claim about semiautomatic rifles, which was the type of gun used in the mass shooting in Orlando days earlier.
"I grew up hunting with Remington 7400s, which are semiautomatic rifles. Cosmetically they look different, they function exactly the same," the Wisconsin Republican said on the June 19, 2016 edition of the show.
"So, look, we can go into all of these issues other than to say, people have a constitutional right to bear arms. People have a constitutional right to have semiautomatic rifles." |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(6/25/2016)
|
Not a totally bad article.....but the 2A term "regulate" applied to the militia; "a well regulated militia...." which meant "well trained."
Why anyone should think "well regulated" means that the government can ban some rifles is beyond any logic.
The second part of the amendment prohibits it!
Logic dictates you cannot have a coherent statement that says 'both A and not A' at the same time.
|
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(6/25/2016)
|
"[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."
Majority Opinion, 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) |
|
|
