|
|
|
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:
Banning assault rifles would be constitutional
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The very first recommendation is to “Ban assault-style firearms.” These firearms are the semi-automatic, military-style rifles that were used in several of the recent mass shootings. They are also the type of guns lawfully possessed by many people in this country for legitimate purposes like target shooting and self-protection.
Now, putting aside the difficult question of whether there is the political will to actually ban these guns, would such a ban be constitutional given the 2nd Amendment right to “keep and bear arms?” |
| Comment by:
jac
(3/3/2018)
|
Assault weapons have full automatic capability. Another anti-gun liberal that doesn't know what he is talking about.
And "Shall not be infringed" means that these rifles are constitutional. |
| Comment by:
JimB
(3/3/2018)
|
| What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do you need explained to you! |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/3/2018)
|
"With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of these [militia] forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view." - U.S. v. Miller (1939)
Not hunting rifles. Not target guns. Militia weapons. SPECIFICALLY. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| "Some people think that the Second Amendment is an outdated relic of an earlier time. Doubtless some also think that constitutional protections of other rights are outdated relics of earlier times. We The People own those rights regardless, unless and until We The People repeal them. For those who believe it to be outdated, the Second Amendment provides a good test of whether their allegiance is really to the Constitution of the United States, or only to their preferences in public policies and audiences. The Constitution is law, not vague aspirations, and we are obligated to protect, defend, and apply it. If the Second Amendment were truly an outdated relic, the Constitution provides a method for repeal. The Constitution does not furnish the federal courts with an eraser." --9th Circuit Court Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, dissenting opinion in which the court refused to rehear the case while citing deeply flawed anti-Second Amendment nonsense (Nordyke v. King; opinion filed April 5, 2004) |
|
|
