|
|
|
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:
PA: Time to reinterpret the 2nd Amendment
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Formally trained people are the only ones who should own firearms (like those who participate in the Pennsylvania Guard). Anyone who believes that their weapon is going to protect their home from criminals is living a TV fantasy. The vast majority of civilians will freeze the moment they are faced with a dangerous situation. Those people who are walking around with concealed carry permits are just plain ignorant. They will be slow on the draw and dead before their weapon even leaves its hiding place. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(6/4/2016)
|
"Anyone who believes that their weapon is going to protect their home from criminals is living a TV fantasy. The vast majority of civilians will freeze the moment they are faced with a dangerous situation. Those people who are walking around with concealed carry permits are just plain ignorant. They will be slow on the draw and dead before their weapon even leaves its hiding place."
Then please explain how some 500,000 to 1,000,000 law abiding people successfully use their firearms, each year, in self-defense against violent ciminals?
Wishful thinking =/=facts. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
