|
|
|
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:
The Left’s Disconnect On Gun-Free Zones
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
This feature appears in the April ‘17 issue of NRA America’s 1st Freedom, one of the official journals of the National Rifle Association. I’m no expert on so-called “gun-free” zones. In fact, I leave that title to researcher and author John Lott, who you will find answering several questions on this very important topic this Thursday. |
| Comment by:
xqqme
(3/21/2017)
|
Folks on the left have a severe disconnect from reality, basing much of their policy on how they'd like things to be rather than how things ARE...
This leads to policy statements like:
.
We can prevent shootings in given areas by posting signs prohibiting firearms.
.
We can declare ourselves female even though we have a penis and are genetically male.
.
We can proclaim a "right" to have somebody else work on our behalf and collect welfare, while at the same time decrying slavery.
.
We can pass laws preventing cruelty to animals, causing them any pain at all, but would never interfere with a mother's "right" to have her unborn child dismembered and pulled, in pieces, from her womb.
.
We can read the 2nd Amendment to ban your right to arms.
|
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
