|
|
|
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:
MD: Ban high velocity weapons to end mass shootings
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Mass shootings are only a small part of the gun violence epidemic, but they are the easiest to fix. We know the answer: ban high velocity, high capacity magazine weapons capable of a high firing rate. It's constitutional (D.C. v. Heller acknowledges the right to restrict sale of dangerous weapons) and it doesn't interfere with self-defense, hunting or target shooting in licensed secure gun ranges. Most important, it works. After the 1996 Port Arthur Massacre, Australia banned assault weapons and instituted strict licensing rules. There has not been a mass shooting since. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/23/2018)
|
What's a "high velocity weapon"?
A 22-250 bolt action hunting rifle is close to the epitome of "high velocity".
Ban it, too?
Idiot thinks that just because she's a doctor her opinion should matter. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
