|
|
|
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:
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(7/19/2019)
|
This law and all laws enacted by anti-gun pols follow the same modus: Declare at the onset that it has achieved its goal merely by existing, which is pure cacadoody.
Nearly all gun laws ultimately fail to attain the results 'assumed' by their proponents at the onset of their incarnations. They are never revisited to see if they actually deliver as promised.
It was indeed fortunate that in 1994, the NRA-led opponents of the "assault weapons" ban insisted on a sunset provision. Any gun bills that survive debate and are passed and signed into law should include a mandatory sunset.
If it takes a constitutional amendment to get that done, very well; make it so. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? — Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836 |
|
|
