|
|
|
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:
Will This Smart Gun Solve America’s Gun Problem?
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
More than five years ago, on the morning of Dec. 14, 2012, in the quiet Connecticut enclave of Newtown, Adam Lanza killed his mother, Nancy, and stole her Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle. He then traveled a few minutes over to his childhood alma mater, Sandy Hook Elementary School. Lanza used his mother’s rifle to shoot through the school’s glass door and subsequently murder 20 children and six adults before killing himself. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(1/9/2018)
|
| Develop and manufacture and market any doggle you want, but don't you DARE try to make it mandatory. |
| Comment by:
lbauer
(1/9/2018)
|
As is becoming increasingly typical these days, the article does not allow for direct comments, have to wonder why.
It ignores the estimated over 300 million firearms already in private hands in the US.
It fails to consider that any safeguard added can with some effort be removed.
Or that anyone with a simple set of machine tools can produce all sorts of highly effective firearms. In WWII submachine guns were produced in quantity in sewing machine factories and bicycle shops. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
