|
|
|
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:
AK: How Students Could Lead a Winning Gun Control Vote in Alaska
Submitted by:
Corey Salo
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
In Alaska, guns have more rights than people do. A bill to tip the balance more toward people died in a legislative committee this spring.
But a new power has entered the gun debate: students. Some of the teens who helped mount protests and school walkouts over the last few months now are pondering a ballot initiative to keep guns out of the hands of people with psychological or emotional disturbances that make them a threat.
A recent poll by Ivan Moore Research showed 84 percent of Alaskans support using a process like domestic violence restraining orders to temporarily seize guns from family members in crisis. But Republican legislators killed a much more modest bill at the behest of the National Rifle Association.
|
| Comment by:
jac
(5/8/2018)
|
The supreme court says that you can't execute anyone that committed a crime when under 19 years old because they are too stupid to understand what they are doing.
Why should anyone care what these juveniles believe? |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
