|
|
|
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:
PP9
(5/20/2022)
|
Sorry, but people's feelings don't dictate what the Constitution says on the matter. We have a right to keep and bear arms, and anything you need government permission (like a background check) for is not a right, but a privilege. It's not the "Bill of Privileges (void where prohibited by law)."
"Assault weapons" as you call them are the exact kind of weapon that are meant to be protected by the Second Amendment. Calling them "weapons of war" only underscores this; the whole point of the 2nd was to protect weapons of war, an idea that was upheld in US vs. Miller (where the court incorrectly concluded that short-barreled shotguns had no military purpose, and were therefore not protected under the Second Amendment). |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? — Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836 |
|
|
