|
|
|
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:
hisself
(7/6/2016)
|
Starts off with a lie!
Assault weapons may be NOT BE banned without violating the Second Amendment! Why? "These weapons are not commonly used for self-defense in the home." SO WHAT? The Second Amendment has no clauses regarding use in the home, it simply states that the government may NOT infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. It is MY RIGHT to carry any arm which I can. No exceptions!
Assault weapons bans, machine gun bans, sawed off shotgun bans - ALL UNCONSTITUTIONAL! |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(7/6/2016)
|
M4s are becoming far more popular for home defense, so the ignoramus who wrote it needs to update his information.
It is also true that it doesn't really matter if anyone uses them for defense. I don't think that antigunners really know what "shall not be infringed" really means. |
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
