
|
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:
IN: Bump stock ban needed
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights prevents the government from infringing on the right to bear arms, therefore, it is unlikely it will ever be eliminated. The main reason there are mass killings is the attachments such as the “bump” on a rifle and clips that hold 30 or more bullets.
The elimination of the “bump” and restricting handguns and rifles to a maximum six bullet magazine (or shotguns to three bullets for hunting fowl) will prevent the carnage that occurs in mass shootings. |
Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(9/1/2018)
|
What garbage! Bump stocks were used at ONE shooting in Vegas! Handguns are used in most mass shootings. The Parkland Florida school shooter used TEN ROUND MAGAZINES because he believe the standard 30s would "print" in the carrybag.
Magazines and bumpstocks ARE IRRELEVANT!!!!!! |
Comment by:
shootergdv
(9/1/2018)
|
Shotgun "bullets" ? The whole diatribe is an advertisement of the writer's ignorance. |
Comment by:
PHORTO
(9/1/2018)
|
Democrats = restrict, restrict, restrict, ban, ban, ban
Wrong country, you misanthropes. Move to Cuba. |
|
|
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) |
|
|