|
|
|
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:
Giffords, Kelly Say ‘Common Sense’ Gun Laws Needed To Protect Vets
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://keepandbeararms.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Former Rep. Gabby Giffords and her husband, Mark Kelly, told a Washington audience Friday that “common sense” steps on guns need to be taken to “help address the epidemic of gun suicide” by veterans. The two were on hand for the launch of the Veterans Coalition for Common Sense, which said it will work to close loopholes in gun-control laws, strengthen current laws and focus on issues of mental health and suicide prevention for veterans.
|
| Comment by:
mickey
(6/15/2016)
|
What a great idea!
If we take away all the veterans' guns, they'll have to hang themselves if they want to commit suicide.
And just think of the massive civil rights violations of denying the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of a million vets...
Sounds like a wet dream for a c@cksucking **** like Kelly or Petraeus... |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
