|
|
|
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:
| Comment by:
xqqme
(10/22/2015)
|
The "Common Use" definition has its own problems. After all, if it had been applied since 1789, when the Constitution was adopted, we might still be limited to single-shot, muzzle loaders. Even though more advanced technologies were available, they weren't the prevalent firearm in use by civilians.
"Common Use" should be clarified, to include those arms in common use in military service, as noted in the US v Miller decision. We'd then have access to automatic weapons, select fire weapons, short barrel rifles, and a whole host of other, man-portable, arms.
Let's not forget the Constitutional provision for "letters of marque", which are meaningless without ships of war and their associated heavy arms. |
|
|
