|
|
|
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:
Mental Health and the 2nd Amendment
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
This was yet another in a series of shootings blamed on guns and not on the undeniable presence of both evil and mental illness in the world. No one advocates the mentally ill should be able to legally buy a gun, but the effort should be on reporting, flagging, and institutionalizing these unfortunates, not on disarming their potential victims as some are once again demanding.
There is a danger here in that the Obama administration has already tried to use mental health as a means, not to make us safer, but to deny us our gun rights under the Second Amendment. |
| Comment by:
jac
(8/29/2015)
|
The government already has the laws and tools it needs to do something about mentally ill individuals. It doesn't want to spend the money it would take to address the problem.
Plus, they would rather these crazy persons continue to commit crime as it furthers their agenda against gun ownership.
Several of these shootings were predictable and had anyone connected the dots, something could have been done to prevent them. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
