|
|
|
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:
The partisan divide on guns remains four years after Sandy Hook
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
In the four years since the outrage perpetrated against the students and faculty of Sandy Hook Elementary School, the debate between gun control advocates and the supporters of gun rights has changed hardly at all. What movement has occurred, in fact, has been a solidification of the positions held by each side. States whose laws protect gun rights have extended their exercise, while those that had strict controls have worked to tighten their regulations. The recent ballot measure in California on guns illustrates this. One interesting exception to this trend has been the State of Illinois, and that’s been due to court rulings that have pushed back against Chicago’s overwhelming influence on the state as a whole. |
| Comment by:
Sosalty
(12/18/2016)
|
| The partisan divide is lessening. Soon there will be national carry, campus carry, a federal enforcement of gun violence offenses, and numerous other pro 2A gains. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege. [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)] |
|
|
