|
|
|
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:
dasing
(2/24/2018)
|
| Shotguns have been used by military, and still are, short or long barreled! |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(2/24/2018)
|
"If the framers didn't intend to grant each citizen the right to bear a sawed-off shotgun, let's assume they also didn't intend to grant each citizen the right to bear "dangerous" military-style assault rifles capable of slaughtering dozens of school children or churchgoers in a few minutes."
That is a completely unsupported assumption.
In declaring that the Court had seen no evidence that the sawed-off shotgun was a legitimate militia weapon, it ruled on what DOES qualify weapons for protection under the 2A, namely ARMS JUST LIKE THE AR-15.
1. in common use
2. an unquestionable relationship to militia use
3. a civilian, semiautomatic version of "military equipment"
4. could contribute to the common defense
These cretins are despicable. |
|
|
| 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)] |
|
|
