|
|
|
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:
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(11/21/2018)
|
| This just sounds like another attempt at making the law abiding citizen responsible for the actions of criminals. It's probably better to do it this way instead of just stating that the inept ability to control criminals is the real reason. Someone has to take the blame....Right? |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(11/21/2018)
|
“This is not about fringing upon anyone’s second amendment right. I believe in supporting the second amendment. I think we are just asking for a reasonable legislation, reasonable gun control,” he said.
And he said that with a straight face; prohibiting peaceable people from having a gun available in their vehicle is not only 'reasonable', it is not about infringing upon anyone's Second Amendment rights.
Do these yahoos realize how dishonest they are? |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. — James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]. |
|
|
