|
|
|
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:
NY: Guns don’t down power lines. Woodchuck hunters do
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
But I’m willing to allow the possession of such high-capacity, rapid-shooting weapons, or — if public opinion is strongly against them — their prohibition. I don’t see it as a Second Amendment issue; rather, it’s more a societal concern to be decided by public opinion.
Background checks of people who want to buy weapons seem reasonable. I had to apply for a New York state license to have my Ruger pistol. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(7/24/2021)
|
"But I’m willing to allow the possession of such high-capacity, rapid-shooting weapons, or — if public opinion is strongly against them — their prohibition. I don’t see it as a Second Amendment issue; rather, it’s more a societal concern to be decided by public opinion."
Mr. Heitmann seems a decent fellow, but that statement shows a complete lack of civic understanding. It is precisely a 2A issue, i.e. the 2A exists to guarantee the right to keep and bear ordinary military-style weapons, exclusively. (U.S. v. Miller, 1939) And as D.C. v. Heller points out, fundamental rights cannot be subjected to any interest-balancing approach. Certain policy choices are "off the table" and are insulated from "public opinion." |
|
|
| 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]. |
|
|
