|
|
|
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:
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(6/27/2015)
|
| How does one set about documenting all the instances of criminals being deterred by their appreciation of threat of their victim(s) being armed ? How do we document how a reactive reach for a firearm deters a criminal ? How do we document how many criminals have a change of heart when their intended victim displays a firearm ? We can't, except in the aggregate decline in violent crimes where the threat of CCW prevails. And its precisely on this hinge VPC and its ilk swing their innuendos. |
| Comment by:
teebonicus
(6/28/2015)
|
These "studies", valid or not, are irrelevant.
The sanctity of our fundamental rights is neither increased nor diminished by any "study".
Fundamental rights stand apart from the democratic process, and are immutable.
As Scalia wrote in Heller, fundamental, natural rights are not subject to any free-standing "interest balancing" test. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege. [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)] |
|
|
