|
|
|
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:
CA: Sacramento group demands ‘sensible’ gun control
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The toll of recent mass shootings across the country has prompted the formation of a new group in Sacramento with a goal of "sensible" gun control.
The newly formed Sacramento chapter of "Everytown for Gun Safety-Moms Demand Action" prayed on the steps of the state Capitol Wednesday night for the victims of the Texas church shooting.
The group said it focuses on legislation that helps keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. Their greatest challenge is getting stronger background checks across the nation. |
| Comment by:
jac
(11/9/2017)
|
My suggestion for sensible gun control.
Get rid of all gun laws restricting honest citizens' rights. That will leave laws against felons in possession and straw purchases.
And then prosecute anyone that uses a gun in the commission of a crime and sentence them to the maximum time in prison for the crime.
No plea bargain, no parole. Maximum sentence for the crime. Get the miscreants off the streets and watch the crime and murder rate go down.
|
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(11/9/2017)
|
| One-word answer: No. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
