|
|
|
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:
MA: Court Rules Second Amendment Doesn't Protect AR-15
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A federal court ruled on Friday that AR-15 rifles, the high-powered rifle used in the Parkland mass shooting, as well as similar military-style rifles and high-capacity magazines are not protected under the Second Amendment.
"AR-15s and [large capacity magazines] are most useful in military service, they are beyond the scope of the Second Amendment [...] and may be banned," wrote Massachusetts District Court Judge William Young. The case was first brought in January 2017 by several gun owners, the nonprofit group Gun Owners' Action League, and gun stores On Target Training and Overwatch Outpost. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(4/7/2018)
|
Judge William Young is an idiot.
Does he understand what "shall not be infringed" means? "Infringed" means "to intrude upon/into," or "to diminish."
So, "Judge" Young, how does your decision NOT diminish a right of the people?
Hopefully this @shat decision will be overturned. |
| Comment by:
punch
(4/7/2018)
|
> Does he understand what "shall not be infringed" means?
Of course he knows what it means. He just doesn't care.
https://youtu.be/miVoe7U6Lx4 |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
