|
|
|
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:
Heroin Deaths Surpass Gun Homicides For The First Time, CDC Data Shows
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
How is it that a certain group of politicians think that making guns illegal will reduce gun deaths? They somehow believe that people who willingly rob homes and shoot people will suddenly start obeying the law. Do they really think that the bad guys will figure the gig is up and turn their guns in? Yes, the law abiding citizens might do so, and where will that leave them? As far as I know, heroin is illegal. How is that working out?
|
| Comment by:
jac
(12/14/2016)
|
People dying because they are breaking the law and using illegal products. By their action they are supporting crime syndicates and illegal gangs.
Most of these users are nothing but a drain on society and costing the country thousands of dollars in judicial and incarceration costs.
I fail to see the problem. |
| Comment by:
laker1
(12/14/2016)
|
| Why don't they pass a law banning Heroin? You know just like murder is illegal. |
| Comment by:
AFRet
(12/14/2016)
|
I propose a ten day waiting period for every heroin purchase, and a background check.
THAT will stop all this illegal drug use.
Oh wait... |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
