|
|
|
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:
America's Gun Paradox
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
My dad is safe and alive. But ten people were shot and killed with a Ruger AR-556 while buying groceries that day. Dad was spared, but not because the gun was outlawed: the alleged shooter Ahmad Al Aliwi Al-Issa bought his semi-automatic rifle legally, six days before the shooting.
Background checks didn’t protect Dad: Al-Issa passed Colorado’s universal background check with flying colours, despite being previously convicted of third-degree assault. Dad wasn’t protected by a county judge who, four days before Al-Issa bought the gun, blocked a Boulder city ban on assault rifles after a suit from the National Rifle Association (NRA). |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(10/17/2021)
|
"I now live in Ireland where even carrying pepper spray is illegal. It is now my parents living in Colorado who represent my greatest sense of vulnerability."
Good. Stay there. And don't even THINK about voting absentee. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
