|
|
|
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:
FL: Tampa City Council interested in joining gun-safety push
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
With the shock of the San Bernardino massacre painfully fresh, City Council members signaled Thursday they may join a growing movement of cities pushing gun manufacturers to adopt safety measures.
Council members Thursday voted 6-0 for Tampa Police Department and city attorneys to look into joining Do Not Stand Idly By, a campaign that aims to use the purchasing power of local and federal government to lobby gun manufacturers to develop gun safety technology and set tougher standards for gun dealers. |
| Comment by:
mickey
(12/4/2015)
|
| Methinks cops need guns more than Glock and S&W need discounted low-margin sales to police departments. |
| Comment by:
jac
(12/4/2015)
|
They're going to use their purchasing power to coerce gun manufactures to develop smart guns.
That's rich. The police and military do not want so called "smart guns".
And if you believe that smart guns will prevent mass killings such as in San Bernardino, I have a bridge I want to sell you.
These brain dead liberals are delusional if they actually believe that any laws will stop criminals, wackos, sickos and terrorists from getting guns. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
