|
|
|
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:
FL: Weapons ban
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Automatic and semi-automatic weapons should only be sold to law enforcement agencies, and not to civilians. They are not needed for self-defense or sport. Banning them would not violate the Second Amendment, as many other guns would be legal.
The NRA claims that "bad guys" wouldn't obey the law and would acquire them anyway. However, banning them would make it that much harder on any would-be mass murderer, and over time the number of such weapons would be reduced, and we would all be much safer. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(6/30/2016)
|
This letter writer is typical of the constitutionally ignorant masses.
Justice Scalia wrote plainly and unequivocally in D.C. v. Heller (2008) that "[T]he Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."
The clear intent of the Second Amendment is to guarantee the people's access to small arms suitable for defense against insurrection, invasion and domestic tyranny. At the time of the writing, there was no distinction between "military" arms and "civilian" arms - they were in PARITY.
It is this principle that is embodied in the Second Amendment. |
| Comment by:
Sosalty
(6/30/2016)
|
| To do our civic duty as the founders of America outlined, we need the same weapons as law enforcement, at a minimum. Fewer criminals would have modern weapons if outlawed? Wasn't the Paris terrorist shooter armed by Eric Holder's 'Fast and Furious' program? No thanks, I need the defensive tool that's maximizes my security. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
