|
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:
MI: The Second Amendment: Times have changed since 1791
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
Website: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
|
There
are no comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"I don’t understand the arguments of people who protest against limitations on any kind of guns. They at least imply that banning high capacity guns from civilians would take away their Second Amendment rights."
"The Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. At that time the most common firearm was a muzzle-loaded single-shot musket. The purpose was to have citizens ready to join a well-regulated militia. (Note the 'well-regulated' word.) I am sure the framers of that amendment could not possibly have imagined guns with the capability of firing many bullets in seconds." ... -------
Submitter's Note: Three words for you Scooter: Girandoni air rifle. |
No
Comments found for this Newslink
|
|
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) |
|
|