|
|
|
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:
Gun lobby misfires again
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
Website: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"What’s the dumbest idea of the season? Backed by the National Rifle Association, state legislators across the country have been pushing laws to let students carry concealed weapons on college campuses."
"What’s the lame excuse? Gun-toting young women would be armed to defend themselves in the event of sexual assaults."
"We shouldn’t be surprised by this. These are the same crackpots who argued in favor of more guns on campuses after the Virginia Tech shootings in 2007. And who held out the 2012 massacre of 26 students and educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut as an argument in favor of arming teachers. Of course, they’re cynically twisting the latest painful, high-profile issue into an argument for more guns." ... |
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(3/4/2015)
|
Another "ovine bleater', completely ignorant of our constitution and reality. Or perhaps one determined to further infantilize our youth ? "Youth" that can enter into contracts, serve in our military, and vote.
Seems like the most blatant sort of "age discrimination" possible, to me. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
