|
|
|
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 control measures debated in wake of Roanoke journalist killings
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
More effective gun control is expected to be a tough issue to tackle, even as family members and political leaders decry this week's on-air killing of two journalists.
"We've got to keep crazy people from getting guns," said Andy Parker, father of reporter Alison Parker who was shot to death Wednesday with cameraman Adam Ward. Parker spoke to reporters outside WDBJ-TV after a visit with the station's staff and victims' families by Virginia's Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe.
WDBJ's General Manager, Jeff Marks, said he also urged action on the issue from Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, who represents Roanoke. |
| Comment by:
jac
(8/29/2015)
|
More calls for "common sense" gun controls.
Except that the controls are anything except common sense, and only serve to inconvenience the law abiding citizen.
Criminals don't obey the law and get their guns illegally so they won't even be slowed down by more gun control laws. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
