|
|
|
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:
Can This Smart Lock Solve America’s Gun Problems?
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
As the country wages war over gun rights, one immigrant from the Himalayan mountains went to work solving the problem in an entirely different say.
Sentinl founder Omer Kiyani is used to beating the odds. He survived a life-threatening gunshot wound as a young man – a terrifying experience that changed his life forever. He then decided to leave his home in the foothills of the Himalayan Mountains and immigrate to the United States where he founded a company called Sentinl. |
| Comment by:
-none-
(4/26/2017)
|
it isn't a mechanical problem, can't be solved with devices, is a regionalized social problem...you have to 1. fix or 2. remove the problem, which happens to be The Urban Black Male, without which we'd be the 3rd safest country in the world for the category "gun homicides".
for example, the entire country of Brazil is a gun free zone:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vMmPxdGPaY
Hundreds protest in Brazil at a favela complex after gun battles kill at least four people
"In Brazil, all firearms are required to be registered with the minimum age for gun ownership being 25. It is illegal to carry a gun outside a residence, and a special permit is granted to certain groups, such as law enforcement officers." |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
