|
|
|
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:
NC: I own guns, but I also have a conscience. Does the NRA?
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
These are automatic rifles that fire dozens of rounds before requiring reloading. How long will the NRA shirk its responsibility to support legislation that sets reasonable limits on (A) who can legally own firearms and (B) which firearms pose too great a risk of harming or killing Americans and, therefore, must be controlled or banned for the safety of all? What could possibly motivate that influential organization to continue with its present philosophy and lobbying to Congress? Surely people don’t have to be told the answer to that question! It is money.
I have personally chosen not to join the NRA because of their rigid stance that perpetuates this needless killing. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(11/25/2017)
|
Their "rigid stance" there, dingbat, is to protect the country from control freak loony leftwing libtards who are constantly trying to chip away at the 2A by reducing the types of guns we can own.
Your ignorance is displayed by your claim about automatic rifles. Those guns were tightly restricted in 1933 and you CANNOT buy them at Wal-Mart. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(11/25/2017)
|
| Read U.S. v. Miller (1939), then siddown and shaddup. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
