|
|
|
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:
Babies named after guns on the rise in US despite shooting sprees with thousands following trend
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
Website: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"Around 88 people are shot dead in the US every day, but those horrifying statistics are not doing anything to dampen America's love of weapons."
"In fact, a worryingly significant minority of parents are showing their devotion to the Second Amendment by naming their children after weapons."
"Gunner is the most popular choice for gun-toting parents, but other names like Trigger, Shooter, Caliber and Pistol are proving popular."
"Gunner was given to over 1500 baby boys last year. Taken together with the 750 boys named Gunnar, an authentic Scandinavian name meaning 'bold warrior,' it comes among the Top 200 boys’ names." ... |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(9/1/2015)
|
"Violent parents"???????
What a bed-wetting progressive shill.
No wonder the page doesn't provide for comments. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
