|
|
|
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:
Security Peformers in Bolsonaro’s Brazil look to America’s Pro-gun Campaigners
Submitted by:
David Wiliamson
Website: http://constituionnetwork.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
On a Saturday afternoon at a shooting club on Rio de Janeiro’s outskirts, 58-year-old court officer Márcio Monteiro takes aim at a paper target. He fires standing, kneeling and with one hand. He and four others have just learned how to load and fire a .38-caliber revolver for the first time as part of a shooting safety and basics class, a requirement in Brazil before purchasing a gun. The students — in addition to Monteiro, a doctor, an office administrator, a bus company owner and a nutritional supplement saleswoman — each paid around $240 for the day’s instruction.
|
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(2/19/2019)
|
"Though Lott’s work is surrounded by controversy in the United States, where findings from the book have been debunked by groups such as the National Research Council..."
Decried, yes. Debunked? No.
Repeating lies don't make them the truth. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
