|
|
|
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:
Black Lives Matter Wants to Abolish the Police – Are They Wrong?
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A recent video featuring Black Lives Matter activist, Janaya Khan, advances a revolutionary notion: abolish the police. While most people’s immediate reaction to such a statement is to dismiss it as ludicrous on its face, it provides an interesting challenge to a generally accepted viewpoint. Ask your average person whether police help or harm society, and most will—without thinking—state that law enforcement is more beneficial than not, that police are generally good and trustworthy, and that without a police force we would be at the mercy of murderers and thugs.
|
| Comment by:
dasing
(4/3/2017)
|
| Police do cause more harm, about half of the time. |
| Comment by:
Sosalty
(4/3/2017)
|
| Racism won't fall away with equality in it's place as long as said race holds dear to a counter productive value system embracing violence toward others. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(4/3/2017)
|
| Short answer: They're lunatics. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
