|
|
|
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:
When U.S. gun control advocates dream, they think of Canada
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
“Even though many of the same notorious guns allowed in the U.S. are available in Canada, it takes a lot longer to buy your first gun,” says the host as she goes down the rabbit hole to get her gun license.
In Canada you need a Possession and Acquisition or PAL license to purchase or own a gun. Vice News sent reporter Manisha Krishnan on a seven-week trek to get hers.
We warn you. The images and themes you are about to see in the above video may jar you. They are disturbing to a red blooded pro-Second Amendment gun owner on this side of the U.S/Canadian border. |
| Comment by:
dasing
(12/15/2016)
|
| The USA is NOT canada! |
| Comment by:
jac
(12/15/2016)
|
| My suggestion is that they move to Canada if they don't like guns. We have a surfeit of liberals anyway. |
| Comment by:
mickey
(12/15/2016)
|
| I thought Hillary, and many others, dream of Australia. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
