|
|
|
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: Make buying a gun as difficult as driving a car
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
I remember well a commentary in The Baltimore Sun by a Maryland gun owner after the mass murdering of over 50 individuals in Las Vegas in 2017. He wrote how he thought “it should be more difficult to buy a gun than to drive a car, yet there’s a lot more hardship involved in getting a driver’s license.”
Maybe part of the issue is that in the discourse over gun rights and gun control in everyday conversations and in the rhetoric in legislative debates, gun rights are seldom defined — often an unfettered abstraction with no concrete referent. That way gun rights are opened-ended and beyond reproach. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/25/2021)
|
"The Heller decision only stipulates possession of a handgun within the home for self-defense as a constitutional right under the Second Amendment."
Again, we see the ruling misstated. It actually reads,
"Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, SUCH AS self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53." (emphasis mine)
The holding clearly states that the right includes using a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, but it does not limit those purposes to within the home.
I find it maddening that nobody ever refutes that deliberate misstatement with the truth. |
|
|
| 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)] |
|
|
