|
|
|
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:
WI: US should follow world example on guns
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
As a retired British Army officer with 20 years of service and now living in Madison, I find it disappointing to listen to the debate (if it can be called that) on the right to bear arms.
It goes without saying that weapons kill and, if in possession, there is an increased possibility damage will be done. Weapons for hunting may be considered differently. One thing is for sure: A semi-automatic assault rifle is not the weapon for either self-defense or hunting and should be removed from the market. The days of Billy the Kid and the O.K. Corral are well passed. |
| Comment by:
gariders
(2/5/2016)
|
| we fought a war to rid our selves of your side of the pond ideas.... |
| Comment by:
lbauer
(2/5/2016)
|
And two wars to pull their butts out a crack.
In WWII private American citizens donated thousands of firearms to the Brits so their home guard would not have to fight Nazi paratroopers off with pitchforks and broomsticks. And after the war those guns were melted down or dumped into the sea.
Next time we'll know better. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
