|
|
|
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:
TX: Failing to outlaw the war machines used in Sutherland Springs is a sin
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Within its double doors lies the scene of the greatest mass murder in Texas history, which took 26 lives and wounded 20 more. The weapon was nearly the same as every mass shooting in recent U.S. history: a Ruger AR-556 gas-powered, military-grade semiautomatic, more killing machine than mere rifle.
Wielded by Devin Kelley, it was one of the 5 million AR-15-type weapons in this country, a kissing cousin to America's standard-issue combat weapon. Along with supposedly civilian versions of Russian, Chinese and German combat weapons, this is the weapon of choice for mass killers from Aurora to Newtown, from San Bernardino to Orlando, Las Vegas and now, Wilson County, Texas. Only the 9 mm pistol, also semi-automatic, is as prevalent. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(11/10/2017)
|
What an irrational, ignorant op-ed, bereft of facts (.556? Please.) and long on hyperbole.
The good news is that none of this jackwagon's wet dream will ever manifest.
U.S. v. Miller ruled that these so-called "war machines" are the type protected within the ambit of the 2A. D.C. v. Heller ruled that we have a constitutionally protected right to bear them for "lawful purposes".
It's called SETTLED LAW. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| There are other things so clearly out of the power of Congress, that the bare recital of them is sufficient, I mean the "...rights of bearing arms for defence, or for killing game..." These things seem to have been inserted among their objections, merely to induce the ignorant to believe that Congress would have a power over such objects and to infer from their being refused a place in the Constitution, their intention to exercise that power to the oppression of the people. —ALEXANDER WHITE (1787) |
|
|
