|
|
|
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:
VA: Second Amendment doesn't protect AR-15s
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Del. Tommy Wright from rural Southside was reported in the Feb. 19’s article “No hint of bipartisanship on gun legislation” to have said: It’s senseless. My heart goes out. But when it comes to the constitutional right to defend yourself and your family, that’s something that’s guaranteed.” He was commenting on the shooting with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle at the Florida high school.
When I raised the issue of gun violence with my own Roanoke city delegate, his response was “I’m a strong supporter of the Second Amendment.” What does that mean and was Del. Wright’s statement correct? |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(3/1/2018)
|
What does "shall not be infringed" mean? The founders desired that the people be as well armed as the army.
Now we're lucky we can keep our bolt actions, lever actions and pump shotties. 'Cause, you know, they're HUNTING GUNS.
The 2A was NEVER ABOUT HUNTING.
It was about pols. like Tommy Wright. |
| Comment by:
dasing
(3/1/2018)
|
| DICKS hasn't sold AR-15's in their main stores for 7 years, why are they spouting off about it now???? |
|
|
| 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)] |
|
|
