|
|
|
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:
A new second amendment for our time
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
But guns keep getting more lethal. Today’s AR-15 will eventually be supplanted by guns that shoot faster, are easier to conceal, hold more rounds, and do more damage to the human body. High-powered plastic guns that can’t be caught by metal detectors. Ammo that explodes into mass shrapnel, capable of killing a dozen people with a single round. |
| Comment by:
laker1
(6/18/2016)
|
| Ammo that explodes and kills a dozen people. You mean like the 12 gauge shotgun shell loaded with buckshot. That old weapon of war still carried by our troops. Maybe the 9mm pistol a weapon of war carried by our troops. These mental midgets are stuck on stupid and would not know which end of a gun is which. If they can ban a black rifle they can ban all guns. They don't like them because they are black and shooty. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(6/18/2016)
|
Ouch! This hurt my brain to read.
Bullets that can kill dozens of people.
And all this time I've been waiting for the invention of the working phaser............. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
