|
|
|
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:
NC: What Turned Fury at North Carolina Muslim Neighbors to Murder
Submitted by:
Anonymous
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Whether the triple homicide in North Carolina was triggered by a parking dispute or by a hatred of Muslims or both, this is certain:
The murder weapon was a handgun.
Without the gun, there would have been no triple funeral on Thursday for 23-year-old Deah Shaddy Barakat and 21-year-old Yusor Mohammad and 19-year-old Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha. |
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(2/14/2015)
|
A most curious assumption on the part of Mr. Daley arises early in his diatribe when he asserts it was the gun's fault. Daley "overlooks" the perp was a self-avowed liberal and fan/supporter of liberal scribes, media and causes. Likewise Daley overlooks another real world reality. The perp, denied a gun by the state, could as easily armed himself with a variety of commonly available "weapons" from any hardware store.
Multiple reports, (including his own), indicate the perp was possessed of an extremely irascible/volitile nature. Indeed one might opine this "good liberal" was of an extremely intolerant nature. And then "acted out" his emotions.
Maybe we ought to be disarming liberals.... |
| Comment by:
teebonicus
(2/15/2015)
|
| I have it on good authority that The Daily Beast is published from Uranus. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
