|
|
|
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:
Federal Court ruling: Mundanes have no right to possess ‘Weapons of War’
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
For the first time, a federal court has explicitly ruled that the Second Amendment does not protect the right of civilians to own firearms classified as “weapons of war.” In upholding Maryland’s ban on private sales and ownership of so-called assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decreed that they fell within the category of “weapons that are most useful in military service,” a phrase contained in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller v. District of Columbia decision. |
| Comment by:
dasing
(2/24/2017)
|
| The unamerican tyrants are on the march, they know what the 2A is all about but wish to control all peons! |
| Comment by:
dasing
(2/24/2017)
|
| The unamerican tyrants are on the march, they know what the 2A is all about but wish to control all peons! |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(2/24/2017)
|
What a horrible garbage-bin fire of a legal case.
"Mundanes have no right to possess ‘Weapons of War’ " REALLY? First of all, the "assault weapons" that are banned ARE NOT "weapons of war!!" They are SEMIautomatic clones of them. Second of all, the intent of America's founders was that the citizens would be as well-armed as the army.
Which actually WOULD MEAN that "weapons of war" would be most stongly protected -- IF we still believed in the Constitution. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908 [by an Indian extremist opposed to Gandhi's agreement with Smuts], whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defend me, I told him it was his duty to defend me even by using violence. Hence it was that I took part in the Boer War, the so-called Zulu Rebellion and [World War I]. Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor. — Mohandas K. Gandhi, Young India, August 11, 1920 from Fischer, Louis ed.,The Essential Gandhi, 1962 |
|
|
