|
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:
Why are Domestic Violence Offenders Allowed to Own Guns?
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://keepandbeararms.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Federal law says people with protection orders against them are not allowed to possess guns. Yet it’s still legal in Ohio. Why? For one local family, that's a question that will haunt them the rest of their lives. Despite having a protection order against him, a young wife and mother was gunned down by her husband. An act her family says could have been prevented if Ohio followed federal guidelines. |
Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(5/18/2016)
|
What happened to the Lautenberg Law -- the one that deprived anyone who'd ever looked at his/her spouse cross-eyed of all firearms? Is this a problem we have to solve AGAIN? Good grief! Are all these problems going to keep resurfacing, only to again need another law to solve??!?!?!
Oh NO!!!!!
We're all DOOMED!
DOOMED, I SAY! |
|
|
QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people. — Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697]. |
|
|