|
|
|
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:
IA: Adopt gun regulations to fight terrorism
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
I support President Barack Obama’s proposal to enact common-sense gun regulations in response to the terrorist threat.
Obviously, we should block suspected terrorists from gun purchases. If the name is on a no-fly list, it should also be on a no-buy list. This would require expanding our screening system to include gun shows and online purchases.
If 40 percent of guns are acquired without a background check, as they are now, we might as well not have any background checks at all. |
| Comment by:
mickey
(12/19/2015)
|
"we might as well not have any background checks at all."
Finally, gun grabbers and I can find some common ground. |
| Comment by:
jac
(12/19/2015)
|
This brain dead liberal can't stick to voicing his opinion. He has to make up statistics to support his unsupportable opinion.
The percentage of gun sales conducted without a background check is nowhere near the 40 percent he claims. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(12/19/2015)
|
| Karen is a proletarian dufus, and as such, should never be allowed to vote. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
