|
|
|
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:
Background checks won't halt shootings
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
In their final months in office, presidents typically focus on building a legacy. One way President Obama is doing that is by tightening federal gun laws. While wiping back tears in a Tuesday speech from the White House, he announced several executive actions he claimed would reduce gun crimes, in particular, the kinds of mass shootings seen in San Bernardino on Dec. 2.
Yet as a former federal judge, Andrew Napolitano, pointed out on FoxNews.com, “Congress has expressly removed occasional sales (sales not made by full-time dealers) from the obligation of obtaining federal licenses and from conducting background checks.” Mr. Obama’s attempt to mandate such checks “will be invalidated by the courts,” he predicted. |
| Comment by:
laker1
(1/7/2016)
|
| The purpose is not to stop shootings. If that were the case Obama would not be releasing thousands of felons and allowing millions of illegals. The reason is registration. If you want to sell your gun you need and FFL. Thus the Feds will know eventually who has the guns and come in & inspect them at your house at least once per year. |
| Comment by:
gariders
(1/7/2016)
|
| make judge Napolitano a Supreme Court Judge |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. — James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]. |
|
|
