|
|
|
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:
CA: A 21st century amendment
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
An AR-556 with a 30-round magazine is not protected by the Second Amendment; it did not exist in 1791, and if it had existed it would have been, well — regulated.
Thus, I humbly submit here, a 28th Amendment to bring the 2nd Amendment into the 21st century. And what should such a 28th Amendment say, anyway? To my mind it is very straightforward.
"The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed. Henceforth, the right of the people to keep and bear single shot arms shall not be infringed." |
| Comment by:
jac
(1/4/2018)
|
In this guys world we should all be riding horses.
What a dunce. |
| Comment by:
hisself
(1/4/2018)
|
| Idiot!!! |
| Comment by:
dasing
(1/5/2018)
|
In 1791 a 16 round semi-auto firearm DID exist!
so where is your argument now??? |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
