|
|
|
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:
VT: Parents call for ‘waiting’ period for firearm purchases
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The parents of a 23-year-old Vermont man say if the state had a law requiring a waiting period for gun purchases their son who died by suicide late last year would be alive today.
Alyssa and Rob Black of Essex have been pushing that “cooling off” period law since, and Thursday they told their story to the Vermont Senate Judiciary Committee as both opponents and supporters of a proposed waiting period for gun purchases looked on. |
| Comment by:
jac
(3/1/2019)
|
How do they know he wouldn't have jumped off a bridge?
Don't blame the tool. Anyone intent on suicide will find a way. |
| Comment by:
netsyscon
(3/1/2019)
|
| When you have finally reached the point that you are committed to killing yourself, nothing will stop you. The process can be very long, or very short. (a neighbors son went over the deep end when a cop shot at the boy when he ran, his mother found him in his bedroom the next day. Dead from a shotgun blast) I know and understand suicide and no waiting period is going to stop a person. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
