|
|
|
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:
Should the US ban assault weapons?
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Most of the all too routine and gruesome mass shootings at schools and other public places are committed with military-style assault rifles and concealed handguns with large capacity ammunition magazines. These weapons of war are designed to cause the maximum damage in the shortest time without having to reload.
Ed.: A debate-style pro/con column. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(1/16/2016)
|
Sorry, but I'm not paying even .99 to opine on that website.
Instead, I'll post my response here.
Re: "Should the U.S. ban assault weapons?
NO.
“With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such [militia] forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.” - UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) 307 U.S. 174
Read, YOU CAN'T DO THAT.
|
| Comment by:
laker1
(1/16/2016)
|
| Real select fire assault weapons banned by Regan in MAY OF 1986. If made before that and registered by the Dept of Justice you can own them via a $200 tax stamp. Limited supply results in current high cost. However civilian law enforcement can own new ones. Why should we the people who are the first responders to crime be placed at a disadvantage? Semi-Autos thus should never be banned placing us at a disadvantage to the government. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
