|
|
|
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:
End mass shootings, no gathering of more than 3 people
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
If it’s a “mental health” problem, it’s a longstanding health problem that nobody has a handle on. We are plainly unable to prevent the shootings, so maybe we should prevent the peaceable assemblies. What we need to do is ban all gatherings of more than three people for any reason.
A mass shooting, by current definition, involves at least four people getting shot, you see, so by banning gatherings of four or more we can prevent mass shootings. It is true that this will outlaw school, church, sporting events, political rallies and, come to think of it, most workplaces. However, it will prevent mass shootings going forward. It’s a high price to pay, but we do love our Second Amendment. Got a better idea? |
| Comment by:
jimobxpelham
(2/24/2024)
|
use a gun in a crime, sell drugs where someone dies, you get the noose
|
| Comment by:
jimobxpelham
(2/24/2024)
|
use a gun in a crime, sell drugs where someone dies, you get the noose
|
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
