|
|
|
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:
IA: Second Amendment shouldn't put safety at risk
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
I cannot understand people being pro-life but not wanting any common-sense measures for gun safety. It is heartbreaking to hear of children killing themselves or someone else because a gun was where they could reach it. We have all kinds of childproof items, but a deadly gun is not childproof. Surely our technology is advanced enough that this could be achieved.
The Second Amendment allows citizens to have guns, but shouldn’t take away the rights of citizens to feel safe at school, church and other venues. Responsible gun owners should be able to own guns, but let us close gun sales loopholes and have gun owners and manufacturers have liability for tragic gun deaths. |
| Comment by:
dasing
(12/30/2017)
|
| We don't need CHILDPROOF, we need CHILD EDUCATION!!!! How hard is it to understand that???????????????? |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
