|
|
|
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:
NV: Nevada Democrats join bill to ban high-capacity gun magazines
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 5 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Nevada's congressional Democrats have joined in legislation that would bar the sale, importation or possession of gun magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
Reps. Jacky Rosen, Dina Titus and Ruben Kihuen all signed on the "Keep Americans Safe Act," authored by Elizabeth Esty of Connecticut.
Rosen said there's no single solution to the gun violence and the massacre that occurred in Las Vegas but restricting the number of rounds a weapon's magazine can carry would reduce the threat.
"High capacity magazines have no practical purpose for hunting or self defense," she said. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(10/13/2017)
|
| They say there's no single solution to gun violence, because they're intent on "boiling the frog slowly." That is, killing off the 2A bit by bit. Totally, in the end, but slowly; they don't want that frog to discover it's being killed and jump out of the pan. |
| Comment by:
shootergdv
(10/13/2017)
|
What ? A single person with a 13 rd. 9mm mg or a 30 round AR mag may certainly need those rounds and more in a defensive situation against multiple attackers.
Guess the armed forces need to cut back too, since ya don't need high capacity for defence ! |
| Comment by:
-none-
(10/13/2017)
|
that is so rotten, Botach.com just moved there to escape kalipornia.....
OT: spitting and yelling racial insults = 1.5 years prison (i.e. prohibited person)
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/10/man_who_spat_on_indian_woman_o.html#incart_river_home_pop
|
| Comment by:
-none-
(10/13/2017)
|
that is so rotten, Botach.com just moved there to escape kalipornia.....
OT: spitting and yelling racial insults = 1.5 years prison (i.e. prohibited person)
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/10/man_who_spat_on_indian_woman_o.html#incart_river_home_pop
|
| Comment by:
-none-
(10/13/2017)
|
that is so rotten, Botach.com just moved there to escape kalipornia.....
OT: spitting and yelling racial insults = 1.5 years prison (i.e. prohibited person)
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/10/man_who_spat_on_indian_woman_o.html#incart_river_home_pop
|
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| "Some people think that the Second Amendment is an outdated relic of an earlier time. Doubtless some also think that constitutional protections of other rights are outdated relics of earlier times. We The People own those rights regardless, unless and until We The People repeal them. For those who believe it to be outdated, the Second Amendment provides a good test of whether their allegiance is really to the Constitution of the United States, or only to their preferences in public policies and audiences. The Constitution is law, not vague aspirations, and we are obligated to protect, defend, and apply it. If the Second Amendment were truly an outdated relic, the Constitution provides a method for repeal. The Constitution does not furnish the federal courts with an eraser." --9th Circuit Court Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, dissenting opinion in which the court refused to rehear the case while citing deeply flawed anti-Second Amendment nonsense (Nordyke v. King; opinion filed April 5, 2004) |
|
|
