| 
            
              | 
 | 
                
                
                  
                    | 
                              
                                   
                                        | 
                              
                              
                              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:
                         
                                       
                                            
                      
     
  
    | A Legal Perspective on the Gun Control Debate Submitted by: 
			
Mark A. Taff
 Website: http://www.marktaff.com
 | 
			There 
				is 1 comment 
			 	on this storyPost Comments | Read Comments
 |  
    | My question, then, is why can England, 329 years after the Declaration of Right, find in itself the strength and courage to change its gun laws so that it is virtually impossible for a civilian to own an AR-15 or even a handgun, but here in the United States, 230 years after the final ratification of our Constitution, we cannot? I believe this is because we are interpreting the Constitution incorrectly and pretending that its text cannot be changed.
 
 Ed.: You can't argue to ban AR-15s while also saying the 2A protects the duty and right to have keep private arms suitable for military use.
 |  
 
 
     
  
    | Comment by: 
     PHORTO
     (3/24/2018) |  
    | This treatise relies on the flawed premise that our rights are granted by men, while the core First Principle of this nation is that they are endowed by an authority higher than men (nature and nature’s god), hence men can have no legitimate mantle of authority to deny them. 
 As such, any ‘progressive’ arguments that dilute, attenuate or disregard those rights cannot prevail, ipso facto.
 
 Sorry, ‘professor’. The central premise of ‘progressives’ that there is no line the government cannot cross if the ‘enlightened class’ deems it necessary is facially profane and fatal to individual liberty.
 |  
 
 |  |  
              | QUOTES
                TO REMEMBER |  
              | 
                    
                      | Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.  — Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788. |  |  |