|
|
|
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
(8/20/2019)
|
"We are not against guns, we are not anti second amendment." said Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense' co-leader Jodi Scheer.
A blatant lie.
If your goal is the denial of protected firearms pursuant to the Second Amendment as ruled by U.S. v. Miller, then you ARE against the Second Amendment.
Per U.S. v. Miller (1939), so-called "assault weapons" are within the ambit of Second Amendment protection, i.e. arms in common use that have militia utility or are any part of the ordinary military equipment and could contribute to the common defense.
The holding culminates with the dictum,
"It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view." - U.S. v. Miller (1939) |
| Comment by:
RichardJCoon
(8/20/2019)
|
"background check legislation will help that."
No, no it won't. Criminals will not be filling out a 4473 to purchase a weapon. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? — Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836 |
|
|
