|
|
|
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:
OH: Real steps needed on path to gun safety
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
So the right to bear arms and the right of the government to regulate the sale of arms can coexist. And must.
What we need now are small, but meaningful, steps toward sensible gun safety laws, like a phase-in of required “smart guns.” These are guns which can be fired only by the owner, with his ID or fingerprints — an owner who who has passed all background checks.
It is long past time for rational action on gun laws in America. And starting small is OK. We can’t fix the evil in human hearts, but we need not empower it. |
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(11/1/2018)
|
That's right, one more step, one more attempt, to convince law abiding citizens that they must take responsibility for the actions of criminals... "One step at a time", so you won't notice that your rights are being dismantled ever so slightly, continually, and never ending.. Citizens must see that their elected officials are bound by the chains of the Constitution. Because if we don't, we'll all eventually see what "Their" agenda was really all about..."One Step at a Time"..
|
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
