|
|
|
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:
VA: Hunting and self-defense do not require such a high level of gun lethality
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Assume that the expected laws would limit the number of guns sold and the capacity of magazines, and require registration and add a “red-flag” law. I know some people grow up with rifles for hunting and handguns for protection. But semiautomatic weapons are not part of that way of life. That technology did not exist when the Second Amendment was adopted; indeed, rifling in the barrels of guns to improve the distance and accuracy of a shot was not widespread. Hunting and self-defense do not require that level of lethality. As for registration, the Second Amendment begins with “a well regulated militia.” If one was to be part of a militia with a gun, the authorities needed to know who owned what guns. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(11/30/2019)
|
| Bite me. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(11/30/2019)
|
The author of this drivel has no clue about the militia, or the 2A.
No one needed registration of guns 200+ years ago. The UNIFORM MILITIA ACT OF 1792 defined the militia quite appropriatly. Many localities REQUIRED property owners to own a musket, with an appropriate amount of powder and ball.
I get sick of listening to statist gun grabbers harking back to the Founders' time to justify their tyranny! |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
