|
|
|
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:
The Left Can’t Pass Any “Common-Sense” Gun-Control Laws Because They Aren’t Proposing Any
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The rallying cry for gun controllers these days is, “We need to pass ‘commonsense gun safety laws,’ like a universal background check.”
This new universal catch phrase, approved by the left wing and their politicians who have lined up to say it without variation, don’t understand the underlying problem.
So-called commonsense (now one word) “gun safety” (must squeeze in safety) laws are nothing of the sort. All five politicians at the first democratic presidential non-debate said this phrase. You will not hear the term “gun-control laws” from them any longer, unless they slip up. Everyone now understands that “gun control” means gun bans. |
| Comment by:
jac
(11/5/2015)
|
| Two that I could think of off hand are to get rid of gun prohibition zones, and constitutional carry. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
