|
|
|
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:
MD: Safety and Second Amendment rights
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
How do we balance our rights under the Second Amendment with the safety of our public? If Columbine was felt as an earthquake and endures as an emblem of national calamity, the subsequent mass shootings have become less and less surprising. Once the killing of children and innocent, peaceful people is bearable, it becomes incongruous with the Christian notion of love and compassion. It is natural to want to do something to prevent another Sandy Hook, Sutherland Springs or Virginia Tech. Working on finding ways to prevent such tragedies rather than removing rights should be the path to follow. And that could be pursued and accomplished through those safety rules we set in place to prevent us and others from harm. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(11/16/2017)
|
Second Amendment shouldn't protect assault weapons
But it DOES. Get over it. |
| Comment by:
dasing
(11/17/2017)
|
| The Republic does NOT provide safety.. it provides security! the individual provides their own safety!!! |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
