|
|
|
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:
VT: Talking civilly about 'Guns in Our Community'
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Ann Braden, the leader of Gun Sense Vermont, said she started her grassroots advocacy group to try.
“As a society we have a responsibility to look at what laws are on the books and how they are being enforced,” Braden said. “It’s important to recognize how many gun owners are responsible and take safety seriously. My organization is focused on the small fraction of people that most agree should not have access to guns.”
Gun Sense Vermont is seeking universal background checks in hopes of keeping violent felons from buying firearms. |
| Comment by:
Sosalty
(10/9/2016)
|
| Universal background checks would not keep criminals from having guns, just as outlawing drugs hasn't stopped addiction. Keeping so called 'non violent drug users' imprisoned would help. Enforced prosecution of those who (legitimately) fail present background checks would help. Getting Eddie Eagle into your local K-3 school would help. Real consequences for the tiny immoral criminal population that abuse guns would help. Universal background checks, no. They would only infringe on the lawful responsible gun owner. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
