|
|
|
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:
America, follow Australia’s lead and enact tough gun laws
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
It is delusional to think the Thousand Oaks, California massacre will be the last. It’s only a matter of time before the next shooter goes berserk and kills more innocent people, maybe someone you love or know, sacrificed to the Supreme Court’s flawed interpretation of the Second Amendment and the “original intent” of our 18th Century founding fathers. They could not conceive of today’s modern, efficient weaponry or crowded urban settings, much less the lunacy the human mind is capable of. Private gun ownership and 21st Century life are simply too dangerous a combination to mix. Safety cannot be assured by superficial gun laws. |
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(11/11/2018)
|
TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242
The Constitution requires that all members of Congress must take an oath of office to support the Constitution before assuming office. In order to comply with the Constitution, Congress has enacted federal laws to execute and enforce this constitutional requirement. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
