|
|
|
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:
VA: NRA does not speak for me
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The majority of Americans accept gun ownership and are not uncomfortable with guns used for sport and self-protection They don’t want to take our guns away. They just want some sane limits on them.
Reasonable limits to the types of guns and ammunition can be agreed upon.
No one needs military style weapons for self-defense, 30 round magazines (the Marines seemed to think that 20 round magazines where OK for my M-14) or ammo designed to penetrate police ballistic vests. Citizens do not need full ballistic body armor. |
| Comment by:
jughead
(5/5/2018)
|
| please show me where in the constitution and the bill of rights that it says ANYTHING about needs |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. — James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]. |
|
|
