|
|
|
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:
NV: Time for Nevada to put tracer ammunition in its crosshairs
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Tracer ammunition was developed so that soldiers could more effectively kill enemy combatants at night and over long distances. It was later was found useful in air warfare, where it helped pilots see the trajectories of the bullets fired from their planes.
So what need would there be for civilians to have tracer bullets?
There isn’t one, which is why some Americans may have been surprised by last week’s news that Stephen Paddock legally bought hundreds of rounds of tracer ammo before the Oct. 1 shooting. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(2/8/2018)
|
"But it’s equally easy to see how the stuff can be devastatingly dangerous in the wrong hands."
So, keep it out of the wrong hands, and leave the rest of us the hell alone.
Schmuck. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(2/8/2018)
|
"Tracers work in both directions," ~~Old military saying.
Tracers are most useful in belt fed crew served machineguns, allowing the operator to walk the fire into a precise area where he identifies an enemy position.
They also allow an enemy to observe where incoming fire is coming from.
I don't know if the Mandalay shooter used tracer rounds....I do know that if he had used them the authorities would likely have had an easier time locating Steven Paddock's position.
Ban away, fools. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
