|
|
|
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:
NH: Suggesting 2nd Amendment supports armed rebellion is nonsense
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Since a semi-automatic is semi, not fully automatic they included them in the list of weapons permitted for the public. History has shown that to have been a grave error. Because of the rapid fire capability of semi-automatics they are the weapon of choice for mass murderers, haters, and suicidal crazies determined to take down innocents in the process. The AR-15 with 30 round clips greatly magnifies the harm they can inflict before being taken down themselves. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(12/29/2018)
|
The author is suggesting that the purpose of the armed militia was to put down uprisings like Shay's revolt, not insurrection.
Bizarrely, he doesn't understand that BOTH are correct and NOT mutually exclusive. Defending against unjustified uprisings would be a legitimate purpose .... but so would defending against a tyrannical government.
Oh .... as usual, the author claims there is no right to have full auto, and even semiauto AR-15s are a mistake..... so there's ONE MORE SMART A $$ out there who does not understand what "infringe" means.
*SIGH!* |
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(12/30/2018)
|
| In the minds of the deciders, disarmament of a free people is necessary to implement that new tyrannical regime that they so desperately seek. They never quit... |
| Comment by:
jac
(12/30/2018)
|
| Another flaming liberal that doesn't understand history. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
