|
|
|
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:
CT: Sandy Hook panel urges further tightening of Connecticut gun laws
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A Connecticut panel charged with coming up with ways to reduce school violence after the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School plans to urge the state to strengthen its already strict gun laws.
While the state adopted some of the toughest rules on gun ownership in the United States following the attack at a Newtown school that left 20 children and six educators dead, the panel voted on Friday to ask Governor Dannel Malloy to restrict gun ownership further in its final report next month. |
| Comment by:
jac
(1/17/2015)
|
Predictable result. This is what you get when the liberals control the government and load the panel with a bunch of panti wetters.
If they really wanted to protect the kids, they would remove schools from the list of victim disarmament zones. |
|
|
| 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)] |
|
|
