|
|
|
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:
Dan Rodricks: NRA's 'Common' Logic in Case for Assault Rifles is Baffling
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Attorneys and gun owners who want the Supreme Court to overturn Maryland’s ban on assault rifles make an argument that goes something like this: If a gun is popular, the government has no business keeping you from owning one — or 10, or 20. Such rifles might have been used in the nation’s horrific mass killings, including the one at a concert in Las Vegas 10 days ago, but they’ve become so “common” that they ought to be protected under the Constitution. |
| Comment by:
netsyscon
(10/11/2017)
|
| Stick to Baltimore's issues. Your out of touch with the rest of the country |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
