|
|
|
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:
Heller on Jarts, vaping, and guns
Submitted by:
Corey Salo
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
People who know me know my lifelong obsession with Jarts. If you’re younger than 40, you probably have no idea what those are.
They were — and are — the world’s best lawn game, consisting of two plastic rings placed 20 or so paces apart into which you lob Jarts, which are winged darts with a metal spear of death on the end.
A great example is Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.
After six vaping deaths nationally, she announced a ban on the sale of flavored nicotine vaping products in the state.
But someone please explain to me why we can ban Jarts (one death) and flavored vape products (six deaths) and continue to do nothing about guns.
Yes, this is a gun control column. Deal with it.
|
| Comment by:
RichardJCoon
(9/17/2019)
|
I believe that owner ship of firearms, or any arms for that matter, is a God given right, that the government does not have the power to infringe.
Contrasted with Vaping products or Lawn darts, for which there is no God given right to own.
Pretty simple to understand. |
| Comment by:
jac
(9/17/2019)
|
| Because guns are useful for many lawful purposes, unlike vape products. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(9/17/2019)
|
Answer:
Because constitutionally-enumerated fundamental rights aren't subject to majority rule.
You idiot.
Oh, wait. I forgot. You're a 'progressive', and 'progressives' reject the DoI and U.S. Constitution.
Siwwy me. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
