|
|
|
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:
TV Reporter’s Father Wants Laws to Prevent ‘Crazy People’ from Getting Guns
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
One day after Virginia TV reporter Alison Parker, 24, and her photographer Adam Ward, 27, were gunned down on live television, Parker’s father is speaking out.
“It’s senseless that her life and Adam’s life were taken by a crazy person with a gun.” Tony Parker said Thursday. “Look, I am for the second amendment. But, there has to be a way to force politicians that are cowards and in the pockets of the NRA to come to grips with and make sensible laws so that crazy people can’t get guns.”
|
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(8/28/2015)
|
Four words: due process of law.
Any interventionist law that squelches fundamental rights must include written guarantees of due process, i.e. it must mandate an adversarial hearing in front of a judge whereby verifiable evidence is presented that the petition should be granted, and the subject of the petition has an opportunity to rebut the allegations. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
