|
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:
What would you have done? Better yet, what will you do?
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
What would you have done had you been at the Cartoon Contest Sunday May 3 in Garland, Texas? Better yet, imagine that you were pulling up to your child's school and you saw these two people in the picture above getting out of a vehicle in the school parking lot?
This could very easily be the most important article you have read in quite some time. It is quite likely some of us will be confronted with a decision of whether to "stand by and do nothing" or take up arms to defend our homeland. If you doubt that possibility, read this: |
Comment by:
Millwright66
(5/11/2015)
|
Americans are in for a rough ride. The downsides are we're going to see a lot more attacks on soft targets by islamic terrorists. And we're going to see increasingly strident rants from the progressive set attempting to further disarm the population in order to 'seek consensus' with a faction that only accepts complete servility or death.
The 'upside' is, given the extent of americans' privately-held arms, outside of major gun-restricted venues, armed citizens will inflict retribution. |
|
|
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) |
|
|