|
|
|
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:
MI: What should we do about guns in America after Orlando?
Submitted by:
Corey Salo
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
We the people of America are once again in a gun fight.
With the increased frequency of mass shootings like the one in Orlando, it seems gun violence is becoming our era's Black Plague.
Mass shootings can be treated, though.
At the heart of the issue is a question of liberty and how we as a nation want to interpret the Second Amendment.
While I worry about the safety of my fellow citizens, I also worry about an emboldened government telling us exactly what we can and can't own.
In the end, reasonable people should have access to reasonable weapons.
But there's got to be a compromise to keep unreasonable weapons out of the hands of unreasonable people. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(6/23/2016)
|
What is "unreasonable" with regards guns?
In 1934, full auto, and short-barreled longarms became "unreasonable."
In 1968 mail-order guns became "unreasonable."
In 1986 newly manufactured NFA guns became "unreasonable."
What happens tomorrow? Next year? Next decade?
"Reasonable" ... another name for "compromise" .... which in turn means (to a antigunner) "Do as I say! Surrender your weapons!!!" |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
