|
|
|
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 |
| "Some people think that the Second Amendment is an outdated relic of an earlier time. Doubtless some also think that constitutional protections of other rights are outdated relics of earlier times.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 For those who believe it to be outdated, the Second Amendment provides a good test of whether their allegiance is really to the Constitution of the United States, or only to their preferences in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) |
|
|
