
|
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:
Obama Using the Charleston Tragedy to Infringe on Your Gun Rights
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Roof had a misdemeanor conviction, but, barring domestic violence, that wasn’t enough. Roof had been arrested on a felony drug charge, but apparently, he hadn’t been indicted.
So the FBI is arguing that if it had more money, it would have discovered that Roof was “an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance…” [18 U.S.C. 922(d)(3)].
This archaic and little-used provision has largely gone into the trashcan for a reason: absent the conviction of a crime in a court of law, how is the government to know if one is using a controlled substance unlawfully?
|
Comment by:
mickey
(7/17/2015)
|
Hey, I know! Let's subject the entire population to daily blood tests for drugs, and add all the positive tests to the NICS database. /sarcasm |
|
|
QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people. — Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697]. |
|
|