|
|
|
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: Assault weapons ban could have saved these 929 victims
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
In the following nine mass shootings, there were 974 shooting victims (264 killed & 706 wounded) to wit:
...
If the shooter had not used an assault weapon, 929 of the victims probably would not have been killed or wounded.
I do not know how congressional members opposed to banning assault weapons can sleep at night. They prioritize reelection over the safety of U.S. citizens, which includes Rep. Vern Buchanan.
Ed.: I guess even the shooters that had multiple weapons couldn't have used them, nor could they have reloaded them. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(11/11/2017)
|
And if wishes were horses beggars would ride them.
High body counts can be achieved with other kinds of weapons. In the Virginia Tech school massacre, Cho used two handguns and killed more people than other school shootings.
A lever action rifle would work real well too. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(11/11/2017)
|
Once and for all, you can't ban what you erroneously and disingenuously deem "assault weapons". They are no such thing. They are semiautomatic firearms that cosmetically resemble real assault weapons (i.e. select-fire, full-auto capable firearms).
In 1939 the SCOTUS in U.S. v. Miller ruled that arms "in common use" that have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" and/or are "any part of the ordinary military equipment" are within the ambit of Second Amendment protection. |
|
|
| 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)] |
|
|
