
|
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:
AZ: A modest proposal for gun control
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Since the Constitution is interpreted incorrectly to guarantee gun ownership, I propose the following to control the mass murders and mindless killings. Let the gun owners have all the guns they can carry. Restrict the purchase of ammunition for all those guns. Allow one box of ammunition per gun (50 bullets per) where a new box may be redeemed for another box upon return of the empty shell casings of the use box of bullets. No one needs more than 50 shells at one time for hunting , target shooting, or self defense. Used shells could be exchanged at licensed shooting ranges for expanded target practice. I believe gun owners should be allowed to own all the Musket balls they want. |
Comment by:
PHORTO
(10/7/2017)
|
Idiocy. The protection extends to all critical design components and ammunition required for the weapons to be operable.
Why to dunces continue to write these asinine letters? |
|
|
QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|