|
|
|
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:
NC: Here's what our state can do about guns
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
First, a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. These are tools of war and have no place on our streets. Assault weapons are not necessary for those who want to hunt or have a means of self-defense in their home. They are simply too dangerous and can cause too much damage for people to be able to acquire them legally.
Second, we must require universal background checks for those purchasing guns. We cannot have differing standards for acquiring a gun just because it happens through a private seller or in a different state. |
| Comment by:
hisself
(2/23/2018)
|
I can legally buy a bolt action .30-06 or .375 H&H Magnum, and you would restrict me from a lowly 5.56 mm because it looks deadly? |
| Comment by:
netsyscon
(2/23/2018)
|
Notice the writer does not identify as DNC or GOP. Either way, we Deplorables will find out, and elections are coming. GOP, we need your vote.
|
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(2/23/2018)
|
Since I refuse to use Facebook, I can't sign in to comment.
However, I will make note here:
Per U.S. v. Miller (1939), so-called "assault weapons" are within the ambit of Second Amendment protection, which provides that arms in common use that have militia utility or are any part of the ordinary military equipment and could contribute to the common defense are those the amendment was intended to guarantee. As a matter of fact, AR-15s and the like are textbook examples of this description.
This is precedent. Why it isn't cited in repelling so-called "assault weapons" bans is a mystery that drives me NUTZ. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people. — Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697]. |
|
|
