|
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:
SC: Gun laws make sense
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A ban on semi-automatic rifles and large capacity magazines is cited as “not reasonable” because they are “clearly suitable for militia use and are often ideal for self-defense.” To which “militia” (a civilian military force raised to support the regular army or raised to oppose the regular Army) is he referring? The group who took over the wildlife refuge in Oregon? I’d sure feel safer to know they have semi-automatic rifles. “Ideal for self-defense”? Name one example. Seems to me those have been used by mass killers of innocent students and churchgoers.
|
Comment by:
laker1
(1/15/2016)
|
Cops have full auto so called assault rifles. Why should we the people, the first responders to violent crime, be at a disadvantage when faced with armed criminals? |
|
|
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)] |
|
|