|
|
|
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:
U.S. needs a 28th Amendment
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
Website: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
|
There
are 4 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
... "Any discussion of limiting access to firearms always triggers an angry recoil by groups and individuals who cite the Second Amendment as sacrosanct."
"Until Congress and state legislators engage in serious discussion of reducing gun violence, let us consider a 28th amendment to the Constitution: 'The right of Americans to go about their lives in peace without fear of victimization by gun violence shall not be abridged.'" ...
-------
Submitter's Note: Starting a civil war is probably not the best way to reduce "gun violence". |
| Comment by:
xqqme
(9/1/2015)
|
The author of this piece seems to opine that governments should "...declare gun-free zones, such as parks, malls and other public spaces."
He seems to forget that governments have already declared murder, burglary, robbery, assault, and a variety of other acts to be prohibited (illegal) and yet they occur with unsurprising regularity.
Another dolt who believes the impossible, that merely issuing more laws will somehow stop evil people from doing evil things.
I'll bet he's against long (life without parole) prison sentences and the death penalty, which are proven to reduce repeat offenses by criminals. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(9/1/2015)
|
No means to place this where it belongs (no comments section), so I'll put it HERE.
Take yer amendment and stick it up yer @$$.
"The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." - U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) 92 U.S. 542
|
| Comment by:
usav8er
(9/1/2015)
|
| These morons who advocate repealing the 2nd amendment haven't given any serious logical thought to the long-term consequences. Disarming the populace really worked well in England and Australia(sarcasm). And look at Chicago with the toughest gun control laws in the US, and the highest murder rate. First of all we need real professional leadership in Washington DC instead of a muslim anti-American who does nothing to help the country, instead he foments hate, racism, and discontent. |
| Comment by:
jac
(9/1/2015)
|
I would suggest that the writer move to formally Great Britain. Then he only needs to worry about violent daytime robberies and punks with knives that can kill you just as dead.
Remember that if guns were eliminated by some magic, then bats and knifes would become the apex weapons. I for one am past my prime and would not fare well in a close combat fight. I need a gun for my protection.
Evil will flourish with or without guns. This individual should consider the reality of the current situation instead of wishing for something that can't work. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| As an individual, I believe, very strongly, that handguns should be banned and that there should be stringent, effective control of other firearms. However, as a judge, I know full well that the question of whether handguns can be sold is a political one, not an issue of products liability law, and that this is a matter for the legislatures, not the courts. The unconventional theories advanced in this case (and others) are totally without merit, a misuse of products liability laws. — Judge Buchmeyer, Patterson v. Gesellschaft, 1206 F.Supp. 1206, 1216 (N.D. Tex. 1985) |
|
|
