|
|
|
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:
PHORTO
(8/27/2019)
|
Per U.S. v. Miller (1939), so-called "assault weapons" are within the ambit of Second Amendment protection, which provides that arms in common use that have militia utility or are any part of the ordinary military equipment and could contribute to the common defense are those the amendment was intended to guarantee. The ruling closed with the dictat that the 2A must be applied using the criteria it had set forth.
"With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of these [militia] forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view." - U.S. v. Miller (1939)
AR-15s and the like are textbook examples of this description. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people. — Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697]. |
|
|
