|
|
|
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:
MI: Citizens should not own weapons of war
Submitted by:
Corey Salo
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Weapons. Our U.S.A. was started with single-shot mascots, in the 1700s. Most citizens used them to put food on their plates. When war was started, big guns were used. We won at Fort Ticonderoga, we hauled the cannons 200 miles to defend Boston. The weapons of war kept getting bigger, bombs, missiles, tanks, planes, and drones. Only to be used by the military, no one else could possess them. This should be made clear by laws that define what weapons can be used by citizens. All must be able to fire one shot at a time and registered by the owner. No rapid-fire, rounds can only be a certain size. All weapons that are bigger cannot be owned and will be taken away and destroyed. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(8/27/2019)
|
What an imbecile.
The 2A says otherwise; it says 'weapons of war' are EXACTLY those the people have a right to keep and bear. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(8/27/2019)
|
I still want a single shot mascot. All I have is a cat and she has no clue in the world what a gun is.
I'd also like a full auto mascot .... but you can't have everything. ;) |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908 [by an Indian extremist opposed to Gandhi's agreement with Smuts], whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defend me, I told him it was his duty to defend me even by using violence. Hence it was that I took part in the Boer War, the so-called Zulu Rebellion and [World War I]. Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor. — Mohandas K. Gandhi, Young India, August 11, 1920 from Fischer, Louis ed.,The Essential Gandhi, 1962 |
|
|
