|
|
|
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:
When the Disruptor Is a Gun
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
In July, the mobile car-hailing service Uber fired an Austin, Texas, driver after he discharged a handgun during an altercation with a passenger. It wasn’t the first time an Uber driver has engaged in gunplay; the company announced in June that it would ban both drivers and fares from carrying guns, but many drivers either claim ignorance of the policy or choose to carry for self-protection anyway. Meanwhile, Airbnb, the online lodging empire that rose from humble couch-surfing beginnings, has yet to offer an explicit policy on hosts or guests possessing weapons. As more Americans come together to exchange goods and services in the so-called “sharing economy,” where do guns, and people carrying guns, fit into the brave new landscape? |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(9/27/2015)
|
| Aw, shaddup and leave us concealed carriers alone. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
