|
|
|
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:
PA: Liberal website stumbles onto harsh truth about gun control in high-crime areas
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Rather, the real problem is what happens when politicians criminalize otherwise law-abiding people’s means of self-defense.
If you increase regulations and penalties against private firearms ownership anywhere, that enforcement is going to disproportionately affect populations and areas that experience more crime and more police presence. Period. In reality, the people who would benefit the most from more gun freedom are law-abiding people in high-crime areas, where gun control laws will make it that much harder to defend themselves. And yes, that would also include young black men who want to keep and carry a firearm to keep themselves safe from people who already decided to break laws that already existed. |
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(4/25/2019)
|
| These same Liberals should take walks at midnight, unarmed, into high crime areas, until they are attacked, to get the full sense of how it would feel coming face to face with a real predator that is about to make you experience fear like never before. |
| Comment by:
kitara1985
(12/8/2023)
|
Thanks forr sharing such a gopd idea, post is pleasant, thats why i have read it completely
|
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
