|
|
|
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: Can’t we just talk about gun legislation?
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
When a defenseless puppy dies on an airplane, Congress is almost instantly roused to action. Why then, are our legislators so reluctant to provide the same level of care and concern for our children, when we have already lost so many to gun violence? How many mass shootings will it take before we see some meaningful legislation that could begin to turn the tide and make our schools, theaters, malls, and other public places safer? |
| Comment by:
GR8dowbay
(3/22/2018)
|
I seldom comment - but this article... I gotta tell ya... is the most childish, ignorant, incoherent babble Ive EVER heard! and thats going the stretch, too - cause Ive heard it all!
This author{sic} is a "teacher"? haha... no wonder NC's living under almost pure SOCIALISM there. With 'superior intelligence' like this, they NEED somebody to RUN their lives.
I *AM* ...amused. |
| Comment by:
PP9
(3/22/2018)
|
| Okay, let's talk. What gun restrictions, regulations, or prohibitions do you want to eliminate? Let's hear it. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/22/2018)
|
| One-word answer: NO. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
