|
|
|
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:
At Mexico's Lone Gun Store, Even The Boss Discourages Sales
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://keepandbeararms.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
There's just one place in all of Mexico where you can legally buy a gun. It's tucked away in an anonymous building on an army base in the capital, staffed by soldiers. Those who enter must surrender any cellphones, tablets or cameras, remove caps and pass through a metal detector. Weapons are kept in locked glass cases, unlike many of the 50,000-plus U.S. gun shops where used-gun racks on showroom floors allow easy access and clerks are happy to let you heft an unloaded firearm. |
| Comment by:
laker1
(8/17/2016)
|
| Mexico is a perfect example of how strict gun laws result in high gun violence. |
| Comment by:
Sosalty
(8/17/2016)
|
| But then you have Obama and Eric Holder running guns to the drug cartels and the homicide rate tripling down there. Oh well, what could possibly go wrong with letting our DOJ create a list of those who can't purchase a gun? |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
