|
|
|
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:
IL: The Second Amendment divide
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Do we really want shootouts in public places? Even well-trained law-enforcement professionals miss far more often than they hit their targets, injuring or killing bystanders. Think of what would happen if students whipped out guns in classrooms, or viewers in darkened theaters, or shoppers in a mall.
Is there any reasonable justification for military-style weapons in the hands of the public? Handguns or rifles for hunting or target shooting, maybe, but automatic or semiautomatic weapons? |
| Comment by:
laker1
(10/17/2015)
|
Justification-yes
per a uber-executive branch that wants your useful guns. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. — Noah Webster in "An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution," 1787, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at p. 56 (New York, 1888). |
|
|
