|
|
|
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:
It’s time for sensible gun laws
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, has infamously said many times, “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.” The shooting tragedy at the Waffle House in Nashville, Tenn., proves that LaPierre’s statement is wrong. Travis Reinking, the Nashville shooter, was stopped by a good guy without a gun! That good guy was hero James Shaw. How did he do it?
The assailant had to stop shooting to reload his AR-15. This left an opening for Mr. Shaw to wrestle and disarm Reinking before he could reload. The result: many lives were saved. This is why our lawmakers and the leadership of the NRA should support limitations on high-capacity magazines. |
| Comment by:
jac
(5/19/2018)
|
As soon as I read "sensible gun laws" I know it would call for more restrictions on law abiding citizens.
Criminals by definition don't obey laws. Additional laws won't do anything to stop criminals, malcontents, and yes, even crazy people from obtaining guns.
Evil exists and nothing will ever stop it.
Stop trying to restrict my ability to defend myself from criminals and malcontents. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
