|
|
|
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: Parent of college-bound child worried about gun bill
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
Website: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"While there appear to be at least three gun bills dancing through the NRA-controlled Florida Legislature, as a parent about to send a child off to a state university I am most concerned about the one that will allow students to carry concealed weapons on campus."
"It's irrational, but as you point out in your editorial, a dozen university police chiefs and a dozen university presidents are no match for the NRA's Marion Hammer. Nor for that matter are Florida citizens like me who support the chiefs and presidents." ... |
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(3/24/2015)
|
| Who sends a "child" to college ? Traditionally incoming collegiate freshmen are of legal age. They can sign obligating contracts. They can serve in the military. They can operate a "lethal weapon" i.e. a motor vehicle. Seems to me these folks are far more concerned with the possible consequences of their failure to "properly parent" their offspring into adulthood. |
| Comment by:
lostone1413
(3/25/2015)
|
| She could send the kid to VT no weapons allowed worked pretty good their |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
