|
|
|
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:
Stricter Background Checks, Not More Guns, Needed
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
With the recent shootings in the Fort Lauderdale airport in Florida, Americans might well feel that no place is safe. More depressingly, they might also feel that nothing can be done about these murderous acts. Something can be done, however. In the case of the alleged Fort Lauderdale shooter, who reportedly was mentally deranged, had his weapon returned to him after it had initially been taken from him by the police. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(1/16/2017)
|
Yes...make those purchase NICS checks more thorough!!!
And what about inherited guns? What about guns already possessed? Stolen guns???
Libtards promise us a utopia if ONLY we inact REAL "COMMON SENSE" gun laws.
Ironically, the term "utopia" means "no place."
Because anyone with two active braincelss to rub together knows perfection is impossible.
All we should expect is that all good men be armed. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege. [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)] |
|
|
