|
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:
Flurry of Gun Bills in Wake of Shootings
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
Website: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"Just before the Senate adjourned for August recess, the second highest ranking Senate Republican, John Cornyn of Texas, introduced a bill aimed at tackling a problem that is quickly getting out of hand—the abuse of the National Instant Check System (NICS)."
"The instant background check system was supposedly going to stop only criminals from purchasing firearms, but is now regularly used to disarm law-abiding Americans."
"Gun Owners of America has opposed the federal background check system since its inception both on constitutional grounds and because it laid the foundation for gun owner registration and other dangerous government abuse." ... |
Comment by:
PHORTO
(8/17/2015)
|
"H.R. 2001 requires that before a veteran can lose his or her gun rights, they must receive due process in a court of law. This alone will protect veterans, and a similar measure will protect millions of seniors from losing their gun rights."
Since the 5th Amendment (the supreme law of the land) already covers this, why is it even necessary?
And if it is necessary, it should be generically labeled The 5th Amendment Enforcement Act and should apply to EVERYBODY. |
|
|
QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people. — Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697]. |
|
|