|
|
|
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:
Kim Kardashian: ‘I Know Importance of Armed Security’
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
In an effort to commemorate “National Gun Violence Awareness Day,” Kim Kardashian inadvertently made the nation aware of something else: she enjoys armed security while evidently advocating for stricter gun control laws that affect average citizens. “After what happened to me in Paris, I know how important it is to be safe and to have armed security,” she said in an essay quoted by Elle.com. “All of my security team is armed, but they also support stricter gun control laws and believe that we should restrict access to firearms for people with mental illness, anyone previously convicted of a misdemeanor, those who have been subject to a temporary restraining order and those at a higher risk of committing gun violence.”
|
| Comment by:
jac
(6/5/2017)
|
| It's sad that anyone even cares what this bimbo thinks. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(6/5/2017)
|
‘I Know Importance of Armed Security’
Noya don't. If you did, you'd carry yourself. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
