|
|
|
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:
Five years after my sister died at Sandy Hook, the gun lobby is working to make us less safe
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The other weekend, my family went Christmas tree shopping. We picked out the perfect tree, laughed as we played in the tree farm and posed for pictures together as a family. It was the perfect late fall afternoon and we all enjoyed spending this yearly tradition together. It’s a day my siblings have always looked forward to. These days, however, my sister Victoria is no longer part of this annual tradition.
That’s because, five years ago this month, Victoria was one of six educators shot and killed at Sandy Hook School — along with 20 first graders — in Newtown, Connecticut. |
| Comment by:
PP9
(12/14/2017)
|
Take out a coin. Any coin, as long as it is American. Look over the words printed on that coin. One of them is "Liberty." Note that "Safety" isn't on there.
We'd all be safer if we were all under house arrest all the time. We wouldn't have anything approaching liberty, but we'd have more safety, at least in theory. Is that a trade-off you're willing to make?
Answer that one before we tackle this nutty idea you have that making 26 counts of murder slightly more illegal than it already was will somehow make the difference in preventing such things. "Twenty-six counts of murder? No problem. Twenty-six counts of murder AND a weapon charge? Aw, hell no!" Sure. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
