|
|
|
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:
The Right to Be Free From Guns
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
Website: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"Advocates of a saner approach to guns need a new strategy."
"We cannot go on like this, wringing our hands in frustration after every tragedy involving firearms. We said 'Enough' after Sandy Hook. We thought the moment for action had come. Yet nothing happened. We are saying 'Enough' after Charleston. But this time, we don't even expect anything to happen."
"What's needed is a long-term national effort to change popular attitudes toward handgun ownership. And we need to insist on protecting the rights of Americans who do not want to be anywhere near guns." ... |
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(6/29/2015)
|
We might as easily demand the "right to be free" from the tyranny of the computer and the internet which are the enabling tools of the "tyranny of the minorities". With an estimated 370+ million privately-owned firearms extant, and more purchased daily how does the writer intend to accomplish his intent without violating several key provisions set forth in our constitution ? Perhaps he does, which pretty well defines the reason for the 2nd. amendment.
Then there's the nasty reality, firearms are mere mechanical devices easily fabricated by anyone with modest tools and skills from readily-available materials and tools. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. — James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]. |
|
|
