|
|
|
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:
Will America take cue from Canada on gun ban?
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution gives us the right to own guns. But I do not believe it gives individuals the right to own assault-style weapons. As Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau recently said, “The weapons were designed for one purpose and one purpose only: to kill the largest number of people in the shortest period of time.” Why would any rational, law-abiding citizen need such a weapon? I can’t imagine. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(5/8/2020)
|
"Why would any rational, law-abiding citizen need such a weapon? I can’t imagine."
Well, then, you're an idiot.
"[To] secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among men...[W]henever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends...it is their Right, their Duty, to throw off such Government[.]" - Declaration of Independence
Beginning to become clearer now? No?
Then, like I said, you're an idiot.
|
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(5/8/2020)
|
"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Infringe: 1.) To intrude into.
2.) To diminish
This means when you ban X type of gun, you have INTRUDED INTO the rights of the people .... and, oh yes, you have diminished those rights.
"The deadliest implement of the soldier is the birthright of an American," ~~ a dead old white guy at the country's founding. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
