|
|
|
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:
MD: Limiting guns in Baltimore and beyond
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Kudos to Dan Rodricks for writing about this issue. I am just flabbergasted as to why there isn’t a wider media campaign, like there was with smoking and cigarettes, on reducing gun violence. It is just outrageous that there are places in this country, where one can walk around with a firearm with no controls, licensing or training. No other country in the world has this kind of callousness to loss of human beings and, most notably, of children. I will not set foot in a state like Texas or Florida, lest there are those who will advocate for “Second Amendment rights.” |
| Comment by:
PP9
(7/15/2023)
|
"I will not set foot in a state like Texas or Florida, lest there are those who will advocate for “Second Amendment rights.”
Fantastic. We don't want you here either.
What is this big hangup you have with gun violence, though? If murders doubled but "gun violence" fell by half, would you call that an improvement?
If a person was running through a crowd stabbing random people, would you want someone with a gun (police or otherwise) to shoot him? But that would increase gun violence, wouldn't it?
Maybe what you should be concerned about is murder, not "gun violence."
|
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
