|
|
|
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: No, Judge Benitez, we do not need weapons of war for ‘home defense’
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A FEDERAL judge’s decision overturning California’s longtime ban on assault weapons has been rightly mocked for its ludicrous likening of an AR-15 rifle to a Swiss Army knife. But the ruling is no laughing matter. While it will be appealed — and hopefully overturned by jurists who understand the Second Amendment is not without limits — the ruling is part of a sustained attack on gun safety laws that has been emboldened by the shift in balance of the U.S. Supreme Court.
U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez of the Southern District of California on Friday termed the state’s ban on assault weapons, implemented in 1989 and revised over the years, “a failed experiment” and ruled it unconstitutional. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(6/9/2021)
|
* SIGH *
More of this "weapons of war" cr@p.
The "Heller vs. D. C." SCOTUS decision stated that modern arms ARE protected by the second amendment. Let's hope the high courts that will hear the appeal know this.
Do the myrmidons who write this mush realize that just about every type of firearm ever made has either been a "weapon of war" or is still a "weapon of war." |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(6/9/2021)
|
WaPo pay wall.
Nope. |
|
|
| 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]. |
|
|
