|
|
|
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:
Yoko Ono's Gun Control Comments On Anniversary Of John Lennon's Death Are Heartbreaking
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 4 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Fittingly, Lennon's widow, Yoko Ono, has made a plea for gun control on the anniversary of his death, because her brilliant, visionary husband was by no means the last "if only" or the last story that will never be told to completion.
In fact, since Lennon's death in 1980, there have been 1.2 million people killed by gun violence in America alone. Ono took to her Facebook page, Imagine Peace, to call for stricter gun control not only for the sake of Lennon's memory, but for the millions of people who have been "hollowed" by gun violence in the past 36 years: |
| Comment by:
dasing
(12/9/2016)
|
| Great, beat up on law abiding people and ignore the criminals, what is wrong with that picture? |
| Comment by:
laker1
(12/9/2016)
|
| Gun control works to lower criminal gun use where? Chicago, Mexico, US Virgin Island? |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(12/9/2016)
|
| Go back to Japan, you silly Nip. |
| Comment by:
mickey
(12/9/2016)
|
| Is this what happens to reporters who never outgrow Romper Room? |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
