|
|
|
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:
Some admittedly controversial gun reform solutions
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
So I propose some controversial solutions: outlaw the possession, sale and transfer of ammunition, and supply a taser to anyone who turns in a handgun, for starters. The Second Amendment does not specify ammunition as something protected by legal right. Just stage a lightening-like strike from Guam to Maine at the same moment, conducted by armed forces and police to confiscate every bullet from every shelf of every store and legislate the manufacture of ammunition be directed only and exclusively to the military and the police. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(5/28/2021)
|
Authored by one misguided missionary.
Who says men of the cloth can't be libtards??? |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(5/28/2021)
|
"[T]he writers of the Bill of Rights allowed in the Second Amendment the possession of guns."
This priest should stick to liturgy, because American First Principles obviously isn't his strong suit. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
