|
|
|
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:
Gun Free Zones Make Sense
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
This is not a column about the Second Amendment. This is not an argument for its abolishment or a liberal ploy to take all the guns away and deprive sportsman of their favored tool for hunting or keep people from protecting their families. While I firmly believe the Second Amendment should be read in its entirety and understood contextually, I can’t deny that it is in the Constitution. So, this isn’t a column about the Second Amendment. |
| Comment by:
dasing
(2/20/2017)
|
| Another "I like 2A, but...", there is no but, you either put your trust in 2A or you don't, no grey areas!! |
| Comment by:
laker1
(2/20/2017)
|
| Educated but its self evident irrational fear of self defense. Lady guns are there already. They are illegally carried |
| Comment by:
jac
(2/20/2017)
|
Two bit newspaper wants a subscription to read their stupid opinion article.
Anyone that believes that victim disarmament zones work is a special kind of stupid. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
