|
|
|
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:
Guns are the Problem
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
This past 4th of July weekend in Chicago was particularly bloody.
In approximately eight hours, gun violence took the lives of eight people, including a 7-year-old named Amari Brown, and wounded 55 others. This is just another in a long list of examples, including Newtown, and Charleston, that shows why we need drastic change in our gun policies.
Gun rights advocates seem astute at blaming everything from lack of mental healthcare to pervasive poverty for gun violence. Some even justify gun ownership for self-defense. Strangely, it appears like it is everything, but the gun. |
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(7/9/2015)
|
| Contrary to the unsubstantiated claims of the anti-gun crowd, most gun owners know firearms are not sentient. That is they have no will of their own, cannot exert 'influence' on those handling them or act of their own volition. So those 'excuse seekers' will always find another 'excuse' to justify their phobia. England has pretty much eliminate private firearms ownership. But it still has gun crime and crimes with knives are increasing. Now its 'banners' are turning to knives. IOW there's no end to the illogical rantings of any nation's phobiacs . |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
