|
|
|
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:
PHORTO
(11/5/2019)
|
"There's no reason for ever to have an AK-47 or AR-15. There's just no reason. You cant give me a reason the populous [sic] needs one," Campbell said.
Simple. Per U.S. v. Miller (1939) the people have a right to keep and bear arms suitable for militia use. Rights aren't justified by 'need', they just ARE. But in case you are so stupid you don't understand the reason the Framers enshrined the people's right to arms in the Bill of Rights, let me clue you in: In the event that the people 'need' to exercise their Declaration of Independence right to alter or abolish a tyrannical government, they 'need' to have arms.
Q.E.D. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? � Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836 |
|
|
