|
|
|
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:
I don't Want My Family's Guns Around My Kids
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://keepandbeararms.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
As a lawyer, I have the deepest respect for the Second Amendment and an individual's right to bear arms. But as I parent, I feel strongly about my right to keep my children out of situations where firearms are present. This bright-line rule served me well, until last month when I learned that my parents and other extended family members had recently obtained handguns and concealed-carry permits. |
| Comment by:
lostone1413
(12/22/2015)
|
| Typical Lawyer Talks out of both sides of his mouth |
| Comment by:
jac
(12/22/2015)
|
"Knowing how to check a gun's safety to determine if it was loaded made me feel a tiny bit more comfortable around firearms"
Ignorant democrat. A gun's safety has nothing to do with whether it is loaded.
The smart position would be to teach her children gun safety, something she's obviously incapable of, but can be done by someone else. Instead she elects to limit the grandparents' contace with her children. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
