|
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:
MO: Makes sense to have limits on owning combat weaponry
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
I am glad my sister owns a handgun, so that when she drives long distances she can have it, just in case. I am glad I can purchase a rifle when my boy gets a little older so we can shoot together. I am glad we have a well-managed conservation department that allows people to hunt within limits using shotguns and rifles.
But why should a citizen have the right to purchase combat weaponry if it infringes upon others’ right for self-defense? My sister’s pistol and my rifle are no match against combat weaponry. |
Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(11/9/2017)
|
Wow, a whole new term; COMBAT WEAPONRY.
Scary, ain't it?
/sarcasm off |
Comment by:
PHORTO
(11/9/2017)
|
Except that the SCOTUS in U.S. v. Miller (1939) ruled just the opposite.
According to the Miller Court, only arms that have military utility are within the ambit of Second Amendment protection. |
|
|
QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
"Some people think that the Second Amendment is an outdated relic of an earlier time. Doubtless some also think that constitutional protections of other rights are outdated relics of earlier times. We The People own those rights regardless, unless and until We The People repeal them. For those who believe it to be outdated, the Second Amendment provides a good test of whether their allegiance is really to the Constitution of the United States, or only to their preferences in public policies and audiences. The Constitution is law, not vague aspirations, and we are obligated to protect, defend, and apply it. If the Second Amendment were truly an outdated relic, the Constitution provides a method for repeal. The Constitution does not furnish the federal courts with an eraser." --9th Circuit Court Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, dissenting opinion in which the court refused to rehear the case while citing deeply flawed anti-Second Amendment nonsense (Nordyke v. King; opinion filed April 5, 2004) |
|
|