|
|
|
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 clear: We're at war
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
However, France has among the most stringent gun control laws in the world, as does Belgium. This fact did not stop the massacres in those countries, but it did prevent their law-abiding citizens from defending themselves. Florida has among the most liberal gun laws in our nation, yet prohibited guns in the establishment where this tragedy took place. One armed guard outside the building was insufficient to stop the attack. What might have changed if only 10 or 15 of the 300 nightclub patrons, each properly trained and licensed, had been carrying a weapon for self-defense? |
| Comment by:
laker1
(6/16/2016)
|
| Florida does not allow CCW in bars or businesses that make more than 50% of income from alcohol. Thus again it was a gun free zone. The cops waited 3 hrs to go in while people bled out and Omar made phone calls and texts. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
