|
|
|
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:
CA: A liberal case for assault rifles
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
I am on the political left. I hate the National Rifle Association. I do not own a gun. I have been a victim of firearms violence. (Shot breaking up a bar fight at the age of 20.) And I am strident supporter of keeping “assault” weapons available and leaving the Second Amendment exactly as it is.
Inconsistent? Hardly. Unlike many liberal intellectuals and commentators (BIll Maher for example) I actually believe the Second Amendment to the US Constitution is about preserving freedom, not simply about the right to hunt or owning a shotgun to protect the house. If you listen to the advocates of the Second Amendment, their arguments make sense. Widespread private gun ownership is a bulwark of a free society. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/31/2018)
|
| This guy'd better turn in his pinko card. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
