|
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:
Professors Aim To Educate Journalists On Gun History, Terminology
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://keepandbeararms.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Two college professors recently gave journalists from around the state a crash course in gun history, terminology and use at a firing range. The state’s Society of Professional Journalists chapter organized the seminar to better educate reporters on a controversial and technically complex topic. In the course of reporting on gun issues and recent control measures, journalists have been criticized for making errors regarding the operation of guns, confusing automatic with semiautomatic firearms and using incorrect terminology. Mike Savino, a reporter with the Record-Journal and society board president, said he hoped to offer journalists a chance to learn about guns in a politically-neutral environment. |
Comment by:
teebonicus
(8/29/2016)
|
"too many guns" according to WHOM?
That's like saying "too much money".
There IS no such thing. |
Comment by:
Sosalty
(8/29/2016)
|
Is a lack of education or a desire to remain ignorant the problem? |
|
|
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) |
|
|