|
|
|
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:
US Olympic shooters caught in political crossfire on guns
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
After winning the gold in skeet shooting in London four years ago, her fifth Olympic medal, Kim Rhode expected to be asked about representing her country or her impressive Olympic record. Instead, she was asked about the movie-theater massacre in Aurora, Colo., which had happened 10 days earlier.
Olympic swimmers aren’t asked about pool safety. Cyclists aren’t asked about helmet laws. But the sport of Olympic target-shooting is inextricably linked with the American debate over guns, and given the intensity of the discussion, there’s no way to avoid it. Because of that, Rhode, who has been winning medals regularly since Atlanta in 1996 but remains largely anonymous among U.S. Olympians, said there is a “stigmatism attached to the sport.” |
| Comment by:
Sosalty
(8/7/2016)
|
| I had to sit thru a dreary basketball game, hoping to see women's archery, but no, no coverage there either. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
