|
|
|
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: The Second Amendment and what it means for gun control
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 4 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The truth is that stricter gun control does not necessarily go against the second amendment. All restrictions such as background checks, and limiting the type of weapon that can be owned, do is serve to help protect the population as a whole. This does not prevent responsible gun owners from purchasing firearms, for protection or sport, and using them in a lawful manner. That being said, it seems unlikely that introducing any form of gun control will be easy and that it may be a long time before changes are introduced, if it ever happens. |
| Comment by:
hisself
(5/4/2018)
|
The right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!
So, please explain how any form of government control is not an infringement.
The Constitution is an agreement between the states to establish a federal government, and establishes the duties and obligations of such a government. The Bill of Rights enumerates certain rights of the people of which the federal government may not interfere.
Regardless of what the courts say, any act by the government to regulate, license, or control the possession of arms by the people is a violation of the Constitution! |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(5/4/2018)
|
Background checks .... debatable, both effectually as well as Constitutionally.
Banning classes of guns IS WITHOUT ANY QUESTION UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
What part of "shall NOT BE INFRINGED" does the author not understand?
No doubt it's the word "infringe."
Infringe: 1.) To intrude upon or into, 2.) To diminish.
In as much definition 1 contains too many words for the author to deal with easily, let's go with #2.
How is banning guns NOT a diminish mentioned of a protected right?
|
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(5/4/2018)
|
*�*&/#$_ AUTO CORRECT!
" diminish mentioned" should read DIMINISHMENT.
I REARLY hate autocorrect! |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(5/4/2018)
|
| ....and poor typing skills too ..... $@#�����₩���% |
|
|
