|
|
|
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:
NJ: Gun control reforms: Maybe now is the right time
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
My suggestion is a new constitutional amendment to clean up language in the Second Amendment so that no future Supreme Court can take away an individual’s right to bear arms. In exchange, the gun lobby and its legislative army would have to make specific concessions to allow reasonable gun control measures by state and federal government, the operative word being “reasonable.” Those measures would be determined in advance, with every interest group having a seat at the table.
Ed.: No. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(7/29/2017)
|
I don't care how you cut it, I do not trust govt goons who want to "alter" the second amendment. It's meaning is clear to those who comprehend English, despite the specious claims of some agenda driven dingbats to claim a collective right.
There's a reason progunners won't "give an inch" on 2A rights; the antigunners keep trying to take a mile, and they do not stop. Agree to bans or some new check system this year....next year they come back with some other "reasonable" scheme.
In the 1960s New York City registered some kinds of firearms....30 years later, under Mayor Dinkins, those guns were prohibited, and we're noncompliance happen ed, confiscated.
It's happened in America!
Don't give an inch! |
| Comment by:
jac
(7/29/2017)
|
How about this for reasonable gun control measures. Any law abiding citizen could purchase class 3 weapons and silencers without having to register them or obtain government permission.
Any "reasonable" gun control measure championed by anti gun liberals only affects law abiding citizens and does nothing to reduce crime or minority violence. |
| Comment by:
xqqme
(7/29/2017)
|
There is a significant problem with certain words:
...fair...
...reasonable...
even... justice...
These words have wildly different definitions according to which side of the political aisle one is viewing them.
"Fair" taxes could mean an equal rate for all or take all income above some arbitrary amount.
"Reasonable" might mean restrictions only on those who have committed crimes, or it might mean any darn thing we can think up to keep dangerous weapons out of everybody's hands (District of Columbia "may issue" anyone?)
Social "justice" based on group identity, or actual, justice based on the equal law.
Words should have meaning to be reliable. The current language (Right of the people ... shall not be infringed...) is fine. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
