|
|
|
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:
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(10/25/2019)
|
| What really needs to be done is to stop relying on someone else with a gun to come and save you. Be an American that is willing to take responsibility for your own protection. |
| Comment by:
RichardJCoon
(10/25/2019)
|
Awfully presumptuous. I don't think "Americans agree that gun deaths are a national crisis." Violent crime and crime involving firearms is in decline.
You can't compare automobiles and firearms.....driving is a privilege, bearing arms is a right.
I could expect no less from a policy director from someplace called "Squirrel Hill." |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(10/25/2019)
|
| "[T]he enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table." - D.C. v. Heller (2008) |
| Comment by:
jac
(10/25/2019)
|
All the gun control laws passed since the 1968 gun control act (and even before that) were supposed to stop unlawful use of guns. None of them have achieved their promise. What makes anyone think that more laws will work.
Gun control laws only affect law abiding citizens. The criminals, wackos and malcontents do not obey laws and will get guns regardless of the number of laws and restrictions. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
