|
|
|
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:
NJ: 'The Armed Citizen'
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The NRA magazine American Rifleman has a regular column called “The Armed Citizen,” which consists of “amazing stories which highlight accounts of law-abiding gun owners in America using their Second Amendment rights for self-defense” against robbers, rapists, burglars, and other assailants. American Rifleman doesn’t have a similar column with accounts of spouses shooting one another, jealous lovers shooting their exes, alcohol-fueled shootings on Saturday night, workplace revenge massacres, or children accidentally shooting their playmates, but no matter. The NRA is an advocacy organization putting out the best side of its story of armed self-reliance. |
| Comment by:
jac
(11/11/2017)
|
| Why doesn't the American Rifleman publish accounts of illegal use of guns? For the same reason that the main stream media doesn't publish accounts of lawful use of guns for self defense. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(11/11/2017)
|
| This 'journal' is a lefty site that provides no comments section to debate its poppycock. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
