|
|
|
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:
Democrat plans to end the Second Amendment vs. Reality
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Joe Biden and his administration have stated clearly that the Second Amendment is on the chopping block if he is elected. Let us examine their proposals versus reality:
1.Banning of modern sporting rifles, known to liberals as "assault weapons." Formerly liberals called these "assault rifles," but quietly changed the term to cover anything they disliked. This ban includes the very popular AR15, M1A, M1 carbine, AK platforms, most anything with a detachable magazine. Most of these arms have been with us 60-100 years. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(10/29/2020)
|
| Superb letter. |
| Comment by:
jac
(10/29/2020)
|
I would add that just like everything else concerning gun control, that if successful in banning semi automatic rifles with detachable magazines, they will not be satisfied and will eventually call for banning all guns.
Say goodbye to your deer rifle and shotguns.
A vote for any dimocrat is a vote for gun confiscation. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
