|
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:
MI: Thoughts shared on open-carry law
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Unless someone starts to waive their gun in the air or jokingly shoots blanks, eighth-grader Isaac Richardson doesn’t see a problem with gun owners openly carrying firearms in schools.
In fact, he is in full support of the Second Amendment and everything it stands for.
“People’s Second Amendment right shouldn’t be taken away from them,” said Richardson, who attends Parker Middle School.
While there are many gun advocates out there who would agree with Richardson, there are still many who believe guns have no business in a gun-free zone. |
Comment by:
jac
(3/28/2015)
|
Gun free zone = victim disarmament zone. When will the disbarment crowd realize that gun free zones have never worked as intended. |
|
|
QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|