|
|
|
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:
WI: Kind supports universal background checks
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Carl Miller of Chippewa Falls was trying to make a serious point about the frequency of gun violence in the U.S.
“It used to be the shooting of the month. Then the shooting of the week. Now, has anyone heard, has there been a shooting today?” he asked at Monday’s listening session held by U.S. Rep. Ron Kind (D-La Crosse) at the Chippewa Valley Technical College campus in Chippewa Falls.
Kind, who represents the 3rd Congressional District, said there are things the government can do to lessen gun violence, including requiring universal background checks of people buying firearms.
He said absent background checks, you don’t know who is getting the weapons.
|
| Comment by:
laker1
(9/5/2015)
|
| No they cannot prevent gun violence. Show us where that is true. |
| Comment by:
jac
(9/6/2015)
|
"Kind, who represents the 3rd Congressional District, said there are things the government can do to lessen gun violence".
Yes. There is something the government can do to lessen gun violence. Lock up the criminals.
It is the criminals, stupid!
Gun laws and restrictions only affect law abiding citizens. Criminals don't obey the law and they don't get their guns through legal channels. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
