|
|
|
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:
No Country for Young Men With AR-15s
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Four years ago the essayist Helen Andrews wrote a critique, for the religious journal First Things, of what she described as “bloodless moralism” — meaning the decay of public moral arguments into a kind of a vulgar empiricism, a mode of debate so cringingly utilitarian that it can’t advance the most basic ethical claim (“Do not steal …”) without a regression analysis to back it up (“… because bicycle thieves were 4 percent less likely to obtain gainful employment within two years of swiping their neighbor’s Schwinn”).
|
| Comment by:
-none-
(2/19/2018)
|
what an odd title, from a movie about psycho drug dealer that goes around whacking people with headshots from a pneumatic cow/livestock dispatcher cattle 'gun' like they used in the meat packing factory.
https://media.giphy.com/media/11TrIqHB9jLFJu/giphy.gif
http://www.fompy.net/photos/uncategorized/2008/01/13/chigurh_cattlegunjpg.jpg
http://goldderby.latimes.com/awards_goldderby/images/2008/03/01/museum_exhibit_1.jpg |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
