|
|
|
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:
MD: Ban high velocity weapons to end mass shootings
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Mass shootings are only a small part of the gun violence epidemic, but they are the easiest to fix. We know the answer: ban high velocity, high capacity magazine weapons capable of a high firing rate. It's constitutional (D.C. v. Heller acknowledges the right to restrict sale of dangerous weapons) and it doesn't interfere with self-defense, hunting or target shooting in licensed secure gun ranges. Most important, it works. After the 1996 Port Arthur Massacre, Australia banned assault weapons and instituted strict licensing rules. There has not been a mass shooting since. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/23/2018)
|
What's a "high velocity weapon"?
A 22-250 bolt action hunting rifle is close to the epitome of "high velocity".
Ban it, too?
Idiot thinks that just because she's a doctor her opinion should matter. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
