|
|
|
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:
MD: Keep battlefield weapons out of private hands
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
This is simple. If a firearm is appropriate on the battlefield, it should not be in the hands of a private citizen (”Man with AK-47 assault rifle busted in Midtown Manhattan subway station,” April 16).
We must ban the manufacture and sale of all automatic and semi-automatic weapons. If you must have a handgun for self-defense, let it be a revolver. Hunters can have bolt action or lever-action rifles. Birders need only a single or double barrel shotgun. Nothing else is needed. |
| Comment by:
shootergdv
(7/16/2021)
|
| I'd say exactly the opposite . Any firearm suitable for the armed forces(organized militia) should be available to the rest of us (the "people") in the unorganized militia. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(7/16/2021)
|
"If a firearm is appropriate on the battlefield, it should not be in the hands of a private citizen."
That is exactly the opposite of what the 2A guarantees.
The SCOTUS in U.S. v. Miler (1939) stipulated that the arms within the ambit of the Second Amendment's guarantee are SPECIFICALLY "battlefield weapons."
The 2A was enshrined to guarantee arms in common use that are "any part of the ordinary military equipment" and/or "could contribute to the common defense." |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908 [by an Indian extremist opposed to Gandhi's agreement with Smuts], whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defend me, I told him it was his duty to defend me even by using violence. Hence it was that I took part in the Boer War, the so-called Zulu Rebellion and [World War I]. Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor. — Mohandas K. Gandhi, Young India, August 11, 1920 from Fischer, Louis ed.,The Essential Gandhi, 1962 |
|
|
