|
|
|
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:
AK: An AR-15 Ban would be Asinine
Submitted by:
Corey Salo
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Understanding the political Left is a mind-boggling exercise for normal Americans.
One need only take a peek at its clown car - now a Greyhound bus, actually - of hopefuls vying for the Democratic nod in next year’s presidential election to see why. While the front-runners are wrong on every issue, they are completely off the hook when it comes to the one that warms the cockles of their hearts, and the one they seemingly know least about - guns, and AR-15s in particular.
On that issue, they are foaming-at-the-mouth nuts.
Democrats recently have veered hard left on guns.
|
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(5/13/2019)
|
Good article, EXCEPT:
"The rifle has the same action as tens of millions of other sporting rifles and handguns — which, inexplicably, would remain unaffected."
Think again; these bans target all semi-auto rifles that use a detachable magazine, or hold more than 10 rounds internally, with the exception of tube-fed .22lr's.
"You can bet handguns would be in the crosshairs if AR-15s were banned."
Except that the SCOTUS has already held that the right to keep and bear commonly-owned handguns is constitutionally protected. Not so modern utility rifles. That may be coming soon, but how soon, nobody knows. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
