|
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:
packing in va
(3/7/2019)
|
So it is better that people be shot by the twos and threes in cities like Chicago? |
Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(3/7/2019)
|
Seems to me most "mass shootings" are done with guns the perp already owns, so I doubt gun control laws of any type would help.
I think this study is rigged. |
Comment by:
jac
(3/7/2019)
|
We would have fewer mass shootings if we got rid of victim disarmament zones.
That won't happen because the gun control liberals want more mass shootings to further their agenda of imposing more restrictions on law abiding gun owners. |
|
|
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) |
|
|