|
|
|
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:
Phoenix Rejects Prescott Shooting Gallery for July 4: Made Guns Look ‘Fun’
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://keepandbeararms.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
AZ Family reports that gallery owners Pete and Valerie Fowler believe the city made the decision, in part, because of the terror attack in Orlando, but the PRD contends it voted to reject the gallery prior to that. PRD spokesman Gregg Bach said, “The planning committee was not comfortable with an exhibit/game that presented guns in a fun or glorified way.” Pete observed, “If it had happened immediately following the shooting in Orlando, I would have been a bit more understanding, but this was just out of the blue. For us to make this business work, we have to get into big events like (Fabulous Phoenix 4th).” |
| Comment by:
PP9
(7/5/2016)
|
| Guns ARE fun, though. If you can't see that they're just inanimate objects that bear no one any ill will, and that are as good or bad as the people holding them, then that's a problem with you, not the inanimate object. It's no different than having a car show, which also presents certain inanimate objects as fun or glorious, even though tens of thousands die each year in crashes. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
