|
|
|
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:
Most Guns Used in N.Y. Crimes Are From Out of State: Study
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://keepandbeararms.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Six out of seven handguns connected to recent crimes in New York state were brought in from elsewhere, the state's attorney general said on Tuesday in a report on suspected gun trafficking along the U.S. East Coast. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said his office had used federal data not available to the public to determine where some 46,514 firearms tied to crimes from 2010 to 2015 had been purchased.
|
| Comment by:
xqqme
(10/26/2016)
|
"Du-oh"
Item A is available for purchase elsewhere, but not here.
This logically means that if Item A is here, then it was purchased elsewhere.
And we needed a "study" for this revelation? |
| Comment by:
mickey
(10/26/2016)
|
| Naw, we don't need a study, we just need a federal law to make it illegal to purchase the item elsewhere, then our local laws will magically start to work, crime will disappear, and rainbows will shoot out of Bloomberg's rectum. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(10/27/2016)
|
| What's the problem? NY is a blue state - they DESERVE it. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
