|
|
|
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
(11/5/2019)
|
"There's no reason for ever to have an AK-47 or AR-15. There's just no reason. You cant give me a reason the populous [sic] needs one," Campbell said.
Simple. Per U.S. v. Miller (1939) the people have a right to keep and bear arms suitable for militia use. Rights aren't justified by 'need', they just ARE. But in case you are so stupid you don't understand the reason the Framers enshrined the people's right to arms in the Bill of Rights, let me clue you in: In the event that the people 'need' to exercise their Declaration of Independence right to alter or abolish a tyrannical government, they 'need' to have arms.
Q.E.D. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
