|
|
|
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:
Gun Task Force Funds Welcome News, but Problem Persists
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
By now it is a familiar scene.
A group of politicians and law enforcement officials gather to bemoan another outbreak of gun violence. This time it was a basketball court at the Bennett Homes housing project in Chester. District Attorney Jack Whelan led a phalanx of officials and lawmen to bemoan still another spike in gun violence in Chester. They stood on the court, where just a few nights before gunmen had sprayed the court with gunfire. It was part of one more violent weekend in the city, one where police were investigating as many as five shooting incidents that left eight people injured. Thankfully, none of the injuries were considered life-threatening. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(11/1/2017)
|
Hey. Task THIS.
Prior Restraint forbids interfering with a person's rights without a) a crime having been committed and b) without following due process of law.
The ONLY effective way to deal with "gun violence" is to meet it with equal (or superior) force at the point of contact, in flangrante delicto.
Natural law. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
