|
|
|
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:
CA: San Jose City Council to Vote on Ordinances for Gun Violence
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
San Jose City Council will vote at Tuesday’s meeting on gun harm reduction ordinances proposed in the wake of a tragic mass shooting that took nine lives at the Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) yard in May--including a first-of-its kind mandate for insurance, and an annual fee for gun owners to relieve the public cost of gun violence. Ahead of the vote, the Pacific Institute on Research and Evaluation (PIRE) provided preliminary estimates from its Public Cost of Gun Harm Study for San José. PIRE estimates the cost to taxpayers stemming from gun violence in San José is $442 million annually.
|
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(6/30/2021)
|
How difficult is it to understand that a whole category of law-abiding, peaceable citizens can't be penalized for the criminal acts of individuals?
This kind of thinking is, well, insane. |
|
|
| 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)] |
|
|
