|
|
|
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:
Kesha Pens Essay Supporting March for Our Lives, Common Sense Gun Laws
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Kesha, a Tennessee native, noted that she does “not oppose the second amendment. “I do not hunt, personally, but I know people who do, and I respect that there are many very reasonable circumstances for gun ownership,” the singer wrote.
“But the military grade guns and firearm accessories used in so many shootings are not made for hunting or non-wartime protection. I hope that I am not misquoted and that I am understood very clearly because I do not oppose people having the right to bear arms if they meet the correct background checks, of which there is little continuity from state to state.” |
| Comment by:
jimobxpelham
(10/13/2018)
|
it's a shame that someone who does not know what she's talking about can make such statements and be taken for granted when she's wrong, every state must do the SAME federal background checks but most importantly, the AR 15 is NOT a military grade firearm (WILL NOT FIRE IN THE AUTO MODE) and it can be used very well for hunting.
|
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
