|
|
|
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:
We Need a “National Crime Survivor Week”
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Last week, anti-gun group Moms Demand Action heavily promoted “National Gun Violence Survivors Week” on their website and on social media. The group posted tragic stories of those who have been affected by or survived gun violence. You’d have to be a robot not to flinch while reading them.
Yet, the women reading these stories should also be aware of an equally important demographic: those who have been the victims of crimes because they weren’t able to defend themselves by using a firearm. The latest Department of Justice crime statistics shows that while crime overall has declined, rape and other sexual crimes have increased. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(2/15/2020)
|
"Yet, despite the increases in these crimes, a Marie Claire magazine poll recently found women want stricter gun laws at a rate 8-10% higher than men."
Repeal the 19th.
HAR! |
| Comment by:
jac
(2/16/2020)
|
Let me guess.
In their world, you are not a crime survivor unless someone pulled a gun on you. Knives, fists and strong arm violence that sent you to the hospital don't count. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
