|
|
|
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:
TN: Moms Demand Action seeks common-sense gun restrictions
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
It’s another blood-pressure-raising Tennessee legislative session – at least for a politically active group of moms concerned about their children potentially being shot.
This spring, lawmakers who want to loosen gun restrictions will get a morale boost from a three-day National Rifle Association convention. It coincides with consideration of several gun-related bills, including one that would eliminate the need for a firearms permit altogether. |
| Comment by:
Uncommon1
(3/27/2015)
|
| Their common sense and the common sense of actual gun owners never seem to coincide. Maybe it's because their common sense will eventually lead to the forfeiture of all right to bear arms. |
| Comment by:
jac
(3/27/2015)
|
| These people's definition of common sense gun restrictions is incremental reduction of gun rights until private gun ownership is completely eliminated. What they fail to accept is that the criminals and gang bangers will still have guns. Only the honest citizens will be disarmed. |
| Comment by:
jac
(3/27/2015)
|
| These people's definition of common sense gun restrictions is incremental reduction of gun rights until private gun ownership is completely eliminated. What they fail to accept is that the criminals and gang bangers will still have guns. Only the law abiding citizens will be disarmed. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
