|
|
|
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:
MD: Keep battlefield weapons out of private hands
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
This is simple. If a firearm is appropriate on the battlefield, it should not be in the hands of a private citizen (”Man with AK-47 assault rifle busted in Midtown Manhattan subway station,” April 16).
We must ban the manufacture and sale of all automatic and semi-automatic weapons. If you must have a handgun for self-defense, let it be a revolver. Hunters can have bolt action or lever-action rifles. Birders need only a single or double barrel shotgun. Nothing else is needed. |
| Comment by:
shootergdv
(7/16/2021)
|
| I'd say exactly the opposite . Any firearm suitable for the armed forces(organized militia) should be available to the rest of us (the "people") in the unorganized militia. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(7/16/2021)
|
"If a firearm is appropriate on the battlefield, it should not be in the hands of a private citizen."
That is exactly the opposite of what the 2A guarantees.
The SCOTUS in U.S. v. Miler (1939) stipulated that the arms within the ambit of the Second Amendment's guarantee are SPECIFICALLY "battlefield weapons."
The 2A was enshrined to guarantee arms in common use that are "any part of the ordinary military equipment" and/or "could contribute to the common defense." |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. — James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]. |
|
|
