|
|
|
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:
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(1/28/2016)
|
| Baloney. |
| Comment by:
lbauer
(1/28/2016)
|
| About such studies, what they always fail to mention is that most times a gun is used to harm someone in a household the shooting is connected with criminal activity. The chance of a family member being harmed by a legally owned firearm absent a criminal act is extremely slight. But then the only way the anti gunners can gain support is to cherry pick their statistics. |
| Comment by:
hisself
(1/28/2016)
|
Funny how they can award a Nobel prize to an idiot!
He is in good company with obama, however. |
| Comment by:
hisself
(1/28/2016)
|
Funny how they can award a Nobel prize to an idiot!
He is in good company with obama, however. |
| Comment by:
jac
(1/28/2016)
|
They come up with this bogus statistic by including suicide in their data and ignoring defensive firearm use where no one is killed.
I am 67 years old and we have always had guns in the house. Nobody was ever harmed. I'll take my chances as the risk of a negligent shooting is less than nil. |
| Comment by:
dalel
(1/29/2016)
|
| Liberals telling me these same tired old lies, are much more dangerous to my family than any firearm I may possess. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
