|
|
|
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:
OK: It is absolutely about guns
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
It is worthwhile to question how criminals get their guns. To paint those who are for gun regulations that might prevent even some of the wrong people from getting firearms as anti-gun and anti-freedom is nothing but propaganda. To question their motives as not about guns but about control is just paranoia.
It is absolutely about guns. It’s about trying to establish sensible controls to reduce gun violence. I am too tired and have enough on my plate to want to control something for the sake of having control. But as a mom and as a human being who cares about the countless lives lost to gun violence every day, it is hard to say, not my problem. |
| Comment by:
jac
(4/1/2019)
|
One more time. Criminals don't get their guns at gun shows. They steal them, buy them on the black market, or buy them through a straw purchase.
All of the proposed legislation will only affect law abiding citizens. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
