|
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:
MI: Good guys with a gun are needed
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
Website: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"In response to Gloria Thomas (Letters, Feb. 5) calling for a boycott of Kroger stores until the chain drops its open-carry policy for gun owners: Gloria, your words are foolish and dangerous. Forget the fact the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the individual right of all citizens to keep and bear arms. Let’s consider recent history. You claim shoppers need not show (carry) a gun to shop in the store. This is a true statement. The same can be said for those attending school in this country. So 'gun-free zones' have been created." ... |
Comment by:
Millwright66
(2/17/2015)
|
Thanks to the publicity generated by these anti-gun mavens and a co-operative media the crime stats indicate criminal elements are targeting customers of stores acquiescing to their demands. How does this make them feel ? There seems to be a lack of demonstrations/publicity in support of these victims by this group. Maybe they perceive it as "justifiable" collateral damage ? |
|
|
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) |
|
|