|
|
|
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:
The Day I Told My Father to Shoot Himself
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://inrigare.wordpress.com
|
There
are 4 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
I stand sweating and anxious in a downtown Seattle courthouse. I am here to perform the frequently groaned about, but required responsibility as a citizen – jury duty. I am 32 and have reported for jury duty twice, but have never been called in for questioning. For this case, a high-profile gang-related shooting, every single person who showed up is questioned. |
| Comment by:
mickey
(4/26/2016)
|
So, Jennifer, you believe that you father was a violent abusive drunk because he owned guns???
Shut the F&$^ up about the rights of people who didn't do anything to you and get yourself a good counselor to help you understand why you want to hurt total strangers like me. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(4/26/2016)
|
Oh, MY!
'Scuse me while I wring out my hanky.... |
| Comment by:
jac
(4/26/2016)
|
| She sounds like she should be under the care of a psychiatrist. |
| Comment by:
mickey
(4/26/2016)
|
Assuming the author isn't honesty-challenged, she's not the only one in need of mental treatment.
They interrogated jurors on their opinions of the 2A before allowing them to hear a case about a street gang homicide? Why, because pro gun jurors are assumed to be pro murder jurors??? |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
