|
|
|
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:
NY: The One-Sided Gun War of the Sexes
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
This is a category in which each week close to 10 women are shot to death by their husbands, boyfriends or former dating partners. The victims and gunmen go unnoticed on the national scene unless the shooting turns into a larger tragedy, like the school invasion on Monday in California, in which a man murdered his wife as she taught class and, in his rampage, killed an 8-year-old student.
It turned out that the man, who ended his spree with suicide, had a history of domestic violence and threats that should have denied him ownership of a firearm. But, as with so many of the nation’s shameful gun control laws, weak enforcement and loopholes helped perpetrate another I.P.V. shooting. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(4/16/2017)
|
"[A]s with so many of the nation’s shameful gun control laws, weak enforcement and loopholes helped perpetrate another I.P.V. shooting."
WHAT weak enforcement and loopholes? This was in CALIFORNIA, MDA's gun control utopia.
What's shameful was her programmed victim mindset, the asinine prohibition against firearms lawfully carried in schools, and the fact that she was a disarmed sitting duck. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
