|
|
|
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:
MT: David Chipman can unite us on Second Amendment issues
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Yes, Chipman supports sensible, proven restrictions regarding firearms to improve public safety, as do I, and many of my fellow Montanans and fellow gun owners. Does this violate our constitutional rights? No. There have and always will be restrictions on Second Amendment rights. I would have to meet stringent requirements to own an M60 machine gun. I am not allowed to have an M203 grenade launcher, an M1 Abrams tank, a LAAW (Light Anti-Tank Assault Weapon), Stinger anti-aircraft missile or a nuclear warhead. Those all seem like reasonable restrictions to me. We all draw the line somewhere. |
| Comment by:
hisself
(8/6/2021)
|
The basic premise of this article is BS! There are no Constitutional barriers to my owning an M60 machine gun, an M203 grenade launcher, an M1 Abrams tank, a LAAW (Light Anti-Tank Assault Weapon), Stinger anti-aircraft missile or a nuclear warhead.
Any law to the contrary is an Unconstitutional infringement upon my right to keep and bear arms. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
