|
|
|
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:
jac
(9/30/2015)
|
The American Bar Association is composed of a bunch of liberal democrats that benefit from the demacrats opposition to tort reform.
The only public safety issue from stand your ground laws is the increased danger to the thugs that get shot when robbing or attacking lawful gun owners.
It appears to me that they are more concerned about their hoodlum clients then they are about the general public. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(9/30/2015)
|
One-word answer:
No. |
| Comment by:
mickey
(9/30/2015)
|
Racial bias?
Do the ABA nitwits think that the fact that black men are more likely than other demographic groups to avail themselves of SYG protections is evidence that those protections are favoring blacks unfairly?
Or are they totally batshit crazy, and think that laws which help blacks more than others are biased against blacks? |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
