|
|
|
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:
NJ: NJ Democrats pass repeal of Christie’s gun law reforms
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
“Only in the Garden State do lawmakers openly block self-defense by those facing serious threats and tout it as a good thing,” he said. “Yet lawmakers themselves enjoy the armed protection of state house security details while they hypocritically block everyone else’s rights.”
The measure, along with one to revise New Jersey’s smart gun statutes, heads to Christies desk. While he has not commented directly on his plans for the two current bills, he has vetoed a string of gun control proposals sent his way in the past. |
| Comment by:
-none-
(6/30/2016)
|
www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs: note "Safety" is #2, after foundational "Physiological" (eating, drinking)...also note that the primary interest of US workers at this time is "will the boss get me a good healthcare plan". Huge aspect of Safety-crime deterance and prevention: if opposing criminal is 1. physically more enabled and/or 2. weapons enabled, a gun is the ONLY solution-ask a cop if disagree, they don't reach for pepper spray/tazer/baton if perp has rock, knife, bat, or is shaqille o'neal 6'9" 275lbs.
|
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
