|
|
|
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:
SC: Guns Worth Thousands of Dollars Stolen From SC Store
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://keepandbeararms.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Authorities say two thieves stole about $20,000 in guns from a Sumter store in a well-planned heist that took less than four minutes. Sumter County Sheriff's spokesman Ken Bell told media outlets that he men broke the lock on the door of Tony's Gun Shop around 2 a.m. Friday. Video surveillance shows one thief smashing display cases with a hammer while a second thief scooped up handguns and threw them into a bag.
|
| Comment by:
laker1
(8/8/2016)
|
| What no background check? It must be one of those loopholes Hillary and Obama keep talking about. |
| Comment by:
jac
(8/8/2016)
|
Obama,
This is how criminals get guns. They don't buy them at gun shows. Despite your phony accusations additional restrictions on gun sales and ownership will only impact law abiding citizens.
If you were actually interested in reducing crime and shootings, you would enforce the existing federal laws against straw purchases and gun possession by felons .
But to do so would impact your constituents and you would much prefer to attack those of us that don't like you or your policies. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
