|
|
|
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:
TX: Texas Professor To America: You Can’t HANDLE Gun Ownership
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The deadly Sunday biker battle at a Waco, Texas breastaurant has convinced one University of Texas at Austin professor that Americans aren’t cut out for the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms.
John Traphagan, a professor of religious studies and anthropology at UTA, wrote in an op-ed for The Dallas Morning News that the most overlooked security threat to this country is its “own heavily armed population” and that America’s culture does not “lend itself well to allowing the proliferation of guns.”
“Americans do not seem to be able to handle gun ownership in a way that permits maintenance of a civil society,” Traphagan stated. |
| Comment by:
jac
(5/21/2015)
|
Another anti-gun homophobe.
How is it that Chicago has such a high gun related crime rate, even before they implemented very restricted concealed carry?
If these "professors" would actually do some research instead of following their prejudices they might actually learn something. |
| Comment by:
teebonicus
(5/21/2015)
|
jac, I presume you mean "hoplophobe".
(Oops! Siwwy you.)
This guy just uses the typical hoplophobe modus operandi - make it up. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
