|
|
|
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:
Voodoo Gun Owners and Superstitious Self-Defense
Submitted by:
Rob Morse
Website: https://slowfacts.wordpress.com/
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Some of us think guns are good, and some of us think guns are bad. Both viewpoints, as I’ll describe them here, are wrong. We all know too many of these voodoo gun owners.
Superstitious gun owners think guns will protect them. These guys and gals go buy another gun if an anti-gun politician says guns are bad. These same gun owners won’t join the NRA to support pro-gun politicians. They go buy another gun if there is a violent crime in their neighborhood, yet they never stop to take a training class. They don’t know how much they don’t know.
I’m going to be blunt: a gun isn’t magic. Only your ingrained habits can help you when you need to defend those you love. Have you built those habits through study and practice? |
| Comment by:
stevelync
(12/1/2016)
|
| Although I'm not a fan of mandated training, I can't emphasize enough the value of the skills a person learns when they attend a training class that teaches them how to fight with a firearm. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
