|
|
|
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:
Amend, don't repeal the Second Amendment
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
To repeal means to revoke, rescind or cancel. Or, to remove. To amend means to revise, alter or change to make it more accurate and up-to-date.
What I said in my letter that W. Reidel responded to with so much scorn is this: "I am not totally against owning a firearm. For I own a firearm myself, "a six-shooter, and to me that's enough to protect my family and myself from criminals or from home invasion."
I don't believe we need assault weapons, the kind that are used by soldiers in battlefields overseas in protecting ourselves from criminals here at home in our country.
To own those kind of killing machines is a dangerous thing, I think. |
| Comment by:
gariders
(11/15/2015)
|
| why don't we just let ex military keep their weapons when they exit the military... the way Sweden Does.... |
| Comment by:
gariders
(11/15/2015)
|
| why don't we just let ex military keep their weapons when they exit the military... the way Sweden Does.... |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
