|
|
|
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:
ME: Bill would lift ban on firearms in public housing
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Maine lawmakers will consider a bill that would lift the ban on owning firearms in public housing.
The issue came to light back in September when a tenant in a section 8 apartment in Rockland shot an intruder. Harvey Lembo's home had been broken into several times before he bought a gun to protect himself. he was then informed by the management company guns are banned and if he didn't get rid of it he'd have to leave.
|
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(2/5/2016)
|
"All three bills passed easily, but not without questions about whether they improved the public safety and the definition of 'well-regulated militia'."
The "well-regulated militia" misconception needs to be addressed clearly, so that everyone understands it.
The right is enumerated for that reason, but that reason isn't a prerequisite for the right. The militia exists because of the right, the right doesn't exist because of the militia.
"The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose'. This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." - U.S. v. Cruikshank (1875) |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(2/5/2016)
|
| (Sorry. That post was for a different story.) |
|
|
| 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]. |
|
|
