|
|
|
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:
Rodricks: The Answer to Gun Madness is Not More Guns
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
When it comes to gun violence, what’s so special about Harford County churches? What makes churches in Abingdon or Havre de Grace any more vulnerable to attack than schools or movie theaters or restaurants or concert venues or clubs or mosques or synagogues or college campuses or office buildings or factories or community centers? In gun-nutty America, there’s really no sanctuary. Name a setting and you can probably find a story about a shooting that occurred there. |
| Comment by:
AFRet
(12/18/2017)
|
| Of course not, the answer is double secret gun free zones.....idiot. |
| Comment by:
lbauer
(12/18/2017)
|
| This idiot makes much of the statistic that no mass shootings with six or more dead were stopped by an armed citizen. What he ignores is the fact that a great many incidents that would have become mass shootings did not because the shooter was met with armed force. I can think of several cases where criminals were captured or killed before they could rack up a high body 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) |
|
|
