|
|
|
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:
OK: Constitutional carry, bad idea
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 4 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Loosening Oklahoma’s gun possession laws to put more guns in more hands of untrained people is a bad idea.
We support the Second Amendment, but do not think that should imply a firearms free-for-all.
The pending permitless-carry measure – vetoed last year by Gov. Mary Fallin – would eliminate common-sense protections in Oklahoma’s gun laws. It passed along political party lines in the House, and the Senate is likely to approve it this week. Gov. Kevin Stitt said he “looks forward” to signing it.
We urge the Senate to defeat the bill and the governor to reconsider his position.
Ed: CC was signed by the governor. |
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(2/28/2019)
|
| Serve.. Not Rule.. Shall not Infringe.. |
| Comment by:
jac
(2/28/2019)
|
There have not been any problem in the 14 or so states that have already passed constitutional carry. This is just one of the issues that have brought out the Chicken Littles with their sky is falling mentality.
All this does is allow law abiding citizens to carry a gun without a license. People that would be able to get a license if they were to pay the fee and jump through whatever other hoops have been invented to restrict lawful carry.
Considering that criminals don't obey the law anyway, all this does is give law abiding citizens the same privileges exercised by criminals. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(2/28/2019)
|
Restoring constitutionally protected fundamental rights to their original scope is never a bad idea.
Those who insist that bearing arms is a privilege and not a right know that it just isn't so, but they hate the idea so much that they pump out a constant stream of disingenuous lies and impotent arguments to diminish that which cannot legitimately be diminished.
The existence of and scope of fundamental natural rights are not subject to further debate. They are NOT privileges. |
| Comment by:
shootergdv
(2/28/2019)
|
| We allow millions of "untrained" and sometimes illegal voters to vote. Rights all deserve same respect |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908 [by an Indian extremist opposed to Gandhi's agreement with Smuts], whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defend me, I told him it was his duty to defend me even by using violence. Hence it was that I took part in the Boer War, the so-called Zulu Rebellion and [World War I]. Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor. — Mohandas K. Gandhi, Young India, August 11, 1920 from Fischer, Louis ed.,The Essential Gandhi, 1962 |
|
|
