|
|
|
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:
teebonicus
(1/21/2015)
|
"The Second Amendment does not protect assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines. It's certainly not what the framers of the Constitution intended when they drafted the Second Amendment."
That is precisely incorrect; in fact, it is the inverse of what the USSC ruled in U.S. v. Miller, which held that arms that are not in common use that "are [not] any part of the ordinary military equipment" are those not within the ambit of 2A protection.
Meaning that arms that meet those criteria ARE, de facto, WITHIN the ambit of 2a protection.
The lower and appellate courts must be shamed into rejecting the Red Queen declarations of anti-gun statists. |
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
