|
|
|
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:
AZ: A modest proposal for gun control
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Since the Constitution is interpreted incorrectly to guarantee gun ownership, I propose the following to control the mass murders and mindless killings. Let the gun owners have all the guns they can carry. Restrict the purchase of ammunition for all those guns. Allow one box of ammunition per gun (50 bullets per) where a new box may be redeemed for another box upon return of the empty shell casings of the use box of bullets. No one needs more than 50 shells at one time for hunting , target shooting, or self defense. Used shells could be exchanged at licensed shooting ranges for expanded target practice. I believe gun owners should be allowed to own all the Musket balls they want. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(10/7/2017)
|
Idiocy. The protection extends to all critical design components and ammunition required for the weapons to be operable.
Why to dunces continue to write these asinine letters? |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
