|
|
|
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 |
| 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) |
|
|
