|
|
|
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:
Ban All Semiautomatic Firearms
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Sadly, Bahney loses his nerve toward the end, implying that we should ban only “particularly lethal” semiautomatics. By contrast, I would ban all semiautomatics. That would leave the gun owners of America with three types of weapons they could legally own:
Single-action revolvers
Shotguns
Bolt-action/pump-action rifles |
| Comment by:
-none-
(11/16/2018)
|
Mateba: semi auto revolver..
imagine world where 2A 3% moving to Canada for gun rights...
can't ban the 1A without doing the 2A first (see: europe)
http://www.victoriataft.com/portland-police-announce-results-of-investigation-into-death-threats-by-antifa-against-victoria-taft/
https://twitter.com/JCos01/status/1063484073027485697
This is life in South Africa behind fences, barbed wire and electric fences. Inside your home you lock yourself behind burglar doors in your room. Remember to fit anti lift mechanisms to your gate. Look what happened this morning.
https://twitter.com/suidlanders/status/1063376164046204929 |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
