|
|
|
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:
MA: Fighting guns with guns is a recipe for bloodshed
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
Website: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"The next Army chief of staff suggested Tuesday that soldiers at recruiting stations should be armed. How typical in the United States to respond to the latest gun tragedy with a call for more guns."
"General Mark Milley's statement at his nomination hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee came in response to questions about the deaths of four Marines and a sailor earlier this month ... General Milley told senators he believed that 'In some cases, I think, it's appropriate" for soldiers stationed at the facility to carry weapons.'"
"The Pentagon is understandably reluctant to arm soldiers at recruitment stations because it wants to encourage people to come in rather than intimidate them into walking past. ..." ... |
| Comment by:
jac
(7/27/2015)
|
"The Pentagon is understandably reluctant to arm soldiers at recruitment stations because it wants to encourage people to come in"
Are you kidding me? All the liberals want guns restricted to police and military. We are only asking that they get their wish.
Since when is an armed soldier considered a menace (except to the enemy)? |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
