|
|
|
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:
WY: Gun control is worth a shot
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Gun control is a necessity for the safety of the American people, and can be implemented through the banning of assault rifles.
The banning of assault rifles will protect the safety of the American people. Richard Perez points out in a New York Times article called “Gun Control Explained” that almost every mass shooting in America is carried out with an assault rifle. It is not necessary for a citizen to own a gun that was specifically designed to kill another person.
The Second Amendment is not an unlimited right to own guns. The United States has banned assault rifles before.
Ed.: Be kind--this is penned by a high-school freshman for English class. |
| Comment by:
Bob G
(7/14/2017)
|
| I am not surprised that the writer of this waste of verbiage is a freshman, since the depth of knowledge and lack of logic displayed is at best sophomoric. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
