|
|
|
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:
jac
(9/30/2015)
|
The American Bar Association is composed of a bunch of liberal democrats that benefit from the demacrats opposition to tort reform.
The only public safety issue from stand your ground laws is the increased danger to the thugs that get shot when robbing or attacking lawful gun owners.
It appears to me that they are more concerned about their hoodlum clients then they are about the general public. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(9/30/2015)
|
One-word answer:
No. |
| Comment by:
mickey
(9/30/2015)
|
Racial bias?
Do the ABA nitwits think that the fact that black men are more likely than other demographic groups to avail themselves of SYG protections is evidence that those protections are favoring blacks unfairly?
Or are they totally batshit crazy, and think that laws which help blacks more than others are biased against blacks? |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
