|
|
|
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:
PA: Should human-shaped targets be banned?
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A Pennsylvania representative is angering gun supporters with his bill to ban human silhouette targets at shooting ranges across the state.
According to WHTM, Rep. Thaddeus Kirkland argues the person-shaped targets encourage violence.
“All we are trying to do here is making sure that folks realize that life is precious...And to place up on a wall a silhouette of a human being...it is a really bad practice,” Kirkland told WHTM. “Why not use a deer, why not use an animal that folks are hunting and not a human silhouette?” |
| Comment by:
xqqme
(1/22/2015)
|
Remember the adage that a picture is worth a thousand words. Every time I shoot at a man-shaped silhouette, I'm making a very clear statement, something supposedly protected by the First Amendment.
"Hey burglars, robbers, muggers, and other various ne'er-do-wells. I'm training to shoot you, center of mass, in order to stop you from doing what it is that you might do to me and mine."
This proposal is an attack on two of the basic Rights that are supposed to be left alone by our government(s), the Right to say what we want to say, and the right to defend our very lives from those who would do evil to us. |
| Comment by:
Uncommon1
(1/22/2015)
|
| Targets should probably remain as silhouettes of humans, but they should probably be a bit larger, since as a nation, we have become more obese in the last couple of generations. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
