|
|
|
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:
CA: Even law-abiding citizens need strict gun laws
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
For example, in Washington state, researchers found nine occasions when gun owners shot and killed an intruder – the stories often cited as proof that guns protect people. In the same period, guns in people’s homes were implicated in 12 accidental deaths and 41 homicides. The number of suicides? Three hundred and thirty-three. Guns harmed their owners nearly 50 times as often as they protected them. Regulations prevent businesses from selling us useless medicines and toxic food. Looks like gun owners need similar kinds of protection. |
| Comment by:
dasing
(1/5/2018)
|
| Crunching unreal numbers means NOTHING at all! As long as liberals lie there is no communication!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
