|
|
|
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:
IL: Illinois gun laws, and a troubling loophole
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Prosecutors say Michael Arquero was acting in self-defense when he fired back at a drive-by shooter last month outside a taco stand in Humboldt Park. He will not face charges related to the car driver's death. "I would consider him a good guy with a gun," one of his friends told the Tribune. "There's the bad guys with guns, and he's a good guy with a gun."
We don't know if Arquero is a good guy with a gun or a bad guy with a gun, but this much we know: He should not have had a gun in the first place. He is a convicted felon, and felons aren't allowed to buy or possess a gun in Illinois. So how did he get one? |
| Comment by:
AFRet
(10/22/2016)
|
Really?
How about this, criminals or anyone who wants a firearm will get one...fingerprints or not.
It's not the gun morons, it's the CRIMINAL.
Just like cars do not drive around by themselves drunk and causing accidents, injuries and deaths.
People that buy this **** are too stupid to be allowed to procreate!! |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
