|
|
|
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:
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(9/18/2019)
|
A lawyer, huh? You'd think she would know this:
Per U.S. v. Miller (1939), so-called "assault weapons" are within the ambit of Second Amendment protection, which provides that arms in common use that have militia utility or are any part of the ordinary military equipment and could contribute to the common defense are those the amendment was intended to guarantee. The ruling closed with the dictat that the 2A must be applied using the criteria it had set forth.
"With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of these [militia] forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view." - U.S. v. Miller (1939) |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. — James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]. |
|
|
