|
|
|
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:
MN: Some northern Minn. gun owners OK with 'practical' gun restrictions
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Many in northern Minnesota own guns for hunting or protection and support the Second Amendment's freedom to bear arms. But that doesn't mean they're anti-regulation.
In recent conversations, gun owners here say restrictions are appropriate for assault-style weapons like the one used recently in the Orlando nightclub shooting.
Their comments reveal a practical middle ground on gun ownership and gun restrictions, issues that have resurfaced with the Orlando killings and subsequent "sit-in" on the floor of the United States House of Representatives by Democrats demanding a vote on gun control. |
| Comment by:
jughead
(6/30/2016)
|
| people dont seem to understand what ever the anti-gun people get they ALWAYS want more next year. i am tired of it NO MORE COMPROMISE |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(6/30/2016)
|
They are clearly ignorant of the "parity concept" embodied in the Second Amendment.
It's what the damned thing is all about. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
