|
|
|
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:
FL: Hypocritical legislators use gun talk to distract
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
I am not, however, comfortable around Florida legislators — because they don't have a healthy respect for firearms, basic safety or even common sense.
They have proposed guns in schools, guns in airports — even bills making it easier for Floridians to shoot each other without getting convicted.
If brains were ammo, these guys would be firing blanks.
Yet they are again gearing up to treat the next legislative session like a fight at the OK Corral. |
| Comment by:
dasing
(12/10/2016)
|
| These idiots can't fathom self defence should NOT be prosecuted! |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(12/10/2016)
|
" ... They have proposed guns in schools, guns in airports — even bills making it easier for Floridians to shoot each other without getting convicted. ... "
Words fail me. "Easier to shoot each other without getting convicted??" So, if you are attacked by an armed criminal who is trying to KILL YOU, but you have a gun and shoot the **** in self-defense, you should be convicted!!! Or, perhaps just made to spend your life's savings on a lawyer to defend you in a trial.
There's many flavors of EVIL out there. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
