|
|
|
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:
Actually, Joe Biden, Flamethrowers Are Legal In All 50 States
Submitted by:
jack burton
Website: https://myhightechsecurity.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Almost all the candidates running in the Democratic Party primary are currently not running to become president of the United States, but of the internet. This is causing them to scramble leftward across each other in an attempt to win the Twitter primary.
Front-runner Joe Biden, despite leading with the majority that doesn’t live online, is as susceptible as the rest. Given the renewed discussion about gun control, he had this to say on Thursday: “It violates no one’s Second Amendment rights to say you can’t own certain weapons. You’re not allowed to own a bazooka; you can’t own a flamethrower.” |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(8/15/2019)
|
"It violates no one's second amendment rights to say you can't own certain weapons."
WRONG.
What do you think "shall not be infringed" means?
"Infringe:" 1.) To intrude into, or onto. 2.) To diminish
source: OXFORD AMERICAN DICTIONARY
"SHALL" Is an imperative. It does not say "may," it says SHALL. Consult a lawyer and ask what is the difference between using those words in a contract or legal document.
But then, Biden has always been a clueless gaff machine. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
