|
|
|
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:
PP9
(5/20/2022)
|
Sorry, but people's feelings don't dictate what the Constitution says on the matter. We have a right to keep and bear arms, and anything you need government permission (like a background check) for is not a right, but a privilege. It's not the "Bill of Privileges (void where prohibited by law)."
"Assault weapons" as you call them are the exact kind of weapon that are meant to be protected by the Second Amendment. Calling them "weapons of war" only underscores this; the whole point of the 2nd was to protect weapons of war, an idea that was upheld in US vs. Miller (where the court incorrectly concluded that short-barreled shotguns had no military purpose, and were therefore not protected under the Second Amendment). |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. — James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]. |
|
|
