|
|
|
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:
PA: Before another Vegas, ban high-capacity magazines
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
In Jan. 17, 1989, a gunman armed with a semi-automatic rifle fired more than 100 rounds at an elementary school in Stockton, Calif., killing five children and wounding 30 people. President George H.W. Bush responded by stopping the import of dozens of models of semi-automatic rifles and proposing a ban on the sale of magazines holding more than 15 rounds. The latter failed. But in 1994, Congress approved a limit of 10 rounds on magazine capacity.
Today, the nation is contemplating a massacre with a higher death toll. On Oct. 1, a gunman in a high-rise Las Vegas hotel killed more than 50 people and wounded hundreds. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(10/26/2017)
|
| No. We won't. |
|
|
| 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)] |
|
|
