|
|
|
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:
teebonicus
(1/21/2015)
|
"The Second Amendment does not protect assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines. It's certainly not what the framers of the Constitution intended when they drafted the Second Amendment."
That is precisely incorrect; in fact, it is the inverse of what the USSC ruled in U.S. v. Miller, which held that arms that are not in common use that "are [not] any part of the ordinary military equipment" are those not within the ambit of 2A protection.
Meaning that arms that meet those criteria ARE, de facto, WITHIN the ambit of 2a protection.
The lower and appellate courts must be shamed into rejecting the Red Queen declarations of anti-gun statists. |
|
|
| 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]. |
|
|
