
|
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:
Should the US ban assault weapons?
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Most of the all too routine and gruesome mass shootings at schools and other public places are committed with military-style assault rifles and concealed handguns with large capacity ammunition magazines. These weapons of war are designed to cause the maximum damage in the shortest time without having to reload.
Ed.: A debate-style pro/con column. |
Comment by:
PHORTO
(1/16/2016)
|
Sorry, but I'm not paying even .99 to opine on that website.
Instead, I'll post my response here.
Re: "Should the U.S. ban assault weapons?
NO.
“With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such [militia] forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.” - UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) 307 U.S. 174
Read, YOU CAN'T DO THAT.
|
Comment by:
laker1
(1/16/2016)
|
Real select fire assault weapons banned by Regan in MAY OF 1986. If made before that and registered by the Dept of Justice you can own them via a $200 tax stamp. Limited supply results in current high cost. However civilian law enforcement can own new ones. Why should we the people who are the first responders to crime be placed at a disadvantage? Semi-Autos thus should never be banned placing us at a disadvantage to the government. |
|
|
QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
"Some people think that the Second Amendment is an outdated relic of an earlier time. Doubtless some also think that constitutional protections of other rights are outdated relics of earlier times. We The People own those rights regardless, unless and until We The People repeal them. For those who believe it to be outdated, the Second Amendment provides a good test of whether their allegiance is really to the Constitution of the United States, or only to their preferences in public policies and audiences. The Constitution is law, not vague aspirations, and we are obligated to protect, defend, and apply it. If the Second Amendment were truly an outdated relic, the Constitution provides a method for repeal. The Constitution does not furnish the federal courts with an eraser." --9th Circuit Court Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, dissenting opinion in which the court refused to rehear the case while citing deeply flawed anti-Second Amendment nonsense (Nordyke v. King; opinion filed April 5, 2004) |
|
|