|
|
|
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:
AK: An AR-15 Ban would be Asinine
Submitted by:
Corey Salo
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Understanding the political Left is a mind-boggling exercise for normal Americans.
One need only take a peek at its clown car - now a Greyhound bus, actually - of hopefuls vying for the Democratic nod in next year’s presidential election to see why. While the front-runners are wrong on every issue, they are completely off the hook when it comes to the one that warms the cockles of their hearts, and the one they seemingly know least about - guns, and AR-15s in particular.
On that issue, they are foaming-at-the-mouth nuts.
Democrats recently have veered hard left on guns.
|
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(5/13/2019)
|
Good article, EXCEPT:
"The rifle has the same action as tens of millions of other sporting rifles and handguns — which, inexplicably, would remain unaffected."
Think again; these bans target all semi-auto rifles that use a detachable magazine, or hold more than 10 rounds internally, with the exception of tube-fed .22lr's.
"You can bet handguns would be in the crosshairs if AR-15s were banned."
Except that the SCOTUS has already held that the right to keep and bear commonly-owned handguns is constitutionally protected. Not so modern utility rifles. That may be coming soon, but how soon, nobody knows. |
|
|
| 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]. |
|
|
