|
|
|
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:
LA: Tim McGraw and Faith Hill support gun control: report
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Louisiana native Tim McGraw and his wife Faith Hill didn't perform at the event, but they were asked about it in an interview with Billboard less than two weeks later. Both said they want to see changes to gun laws.
"... Military weapons should not be in the hands of civilians," Hill said. "It's everyone's responsibility, including the government and the National Rifle Association, to tell the truth. We all want a safe country."
" ... There is some common sense that's necessary when it comes to gun control," McGraw said. "(Gun rights advocates) want to make it about the Second Amendment every time it's brought up. It's not about the Second Amendment." |
| Comment by:
jac
(11/11/2017)
|
I'll give you common sense gun control.
Get rid of all gun laws that restrict the rights of law abiding citizens. That will leave laws against felons in possession and straw purchases
Then. Anytime someone uses a gun in the commission of a crime, sentence them to the maximum prison time. No plea bargains, parole or time off for good behavior.
Put the miscreants in prison for long periods and watch the crime and murder rate decline,
Tim McGraw and Faith Hill live in a bubble. They most likely have armed security that those of us in the real world can't afford. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
