
|
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:
John Lott Q&A: The Fallacy Of One-Gun-A-Month Laws
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
One particular editorial at Dailypress.com took a particularly frustrating tack, choosing to question why gun owners need to practice their Second Amendment rights beyond just one time in a 30-day period. We decided to ask criminologist John Lott, author of the new book, The War On Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies, about that editorial and one-gun-a-month laws in general. |
Comment by:
dasing
(4/6/2017)
|
It is not a question of need, but of want! You may need only one firearm, or several, but you may want many! |
Comment by:
laker1
(4/6/2017)
|
A collector may buy 12 in one week or sell 12 in 1 week. |
|
|
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) |
|
|