|
|
|
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:
U.S. can change status quo on guns
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 4 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
You see, Bryant inflicted his horror on the island of Tasmania, off the southern coast of Australia. Those in charge forged a bipartisan deal with state and local governments to enact far-reaching gun laws. Polls showed overwhelming public support for the measures.
The specific strategies aren't the right ones for America. But what makes the Australia model worthy of attention is that it stands in sharp defiance of hopelessness. A conservative-led government's constructive actions contradict those who maintain that the gun problem is unconquerable, that smart laws can't make a difference.
Australia put its National Firearms Agreement into action within two months of Bryant's rampage. |
| Comment by:
Sosalty
(11/25/2016)
|
| Yeah and the US can still win its' war on drugs (not). |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(11/25/2016)
|
Pay wall.
This article and all like it impudently ignore one fact: the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
It exists PRECISELY to prevent this kind of mischief. |
| Comment by:
PP9
(11/25/2016)
|
"...those who maintain that the gun problem is unconquerable..."
No... we maintain that the gun problem is nonexistent. We have a criminal problem, not a gun problem. |
| Comment by:
stevelync
(11/27/2016)
|
| Just the type of moronic garbage I'd expect coming out of a NY paper. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
