|
|
|
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:
MO: Throwing up my hands doesn’t work for me anymore
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, and that right must be preserved. But citizens do not need weapons capable of killing many victims quickly. They do not need “bump stocks” that convert a semi-automatic weapon into a machine gun-like weapon.
Background checks should be applied for every purchase, not just those by licensed dealers, and people with mental health issues should be monitored better and prohibited more reliably from buying weapons.
Did you notice that Donald Trump labeled the Sutherland Springs massacre a mental health problem, not a gun issue, after he worked with Congress in February to loosen mental health restrictions on gun purchases? |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(11/23/2017)
|
No way to comment. Of course.
"But citizens do not need weapons capable of killing many victims quickly."
1) Yes, they do. According to SCOTUS precedent (U.S. v. Miller, 1939), the types of arms under 2A protection are those that have "some reasonable relationship to the . . . efficiency of a well-regulated militia".
2) Protected rights are not subject to the majority's assessment of what people "need". |
| Comment by:
dasing
(11/24/2017)
|
| NOT a matter of NEED, it is a matter of want...and they are legal firearms, DUH!!! |
|
|
| 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]. |
|
|
