|
|
|
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:
Summit Offers Hope for Finding Common Ground on Guns
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://constitutionnetwork.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Something remarkable happened recently in Silicon Valley. No, not the next big thing in technology. But perhaps the next big thing in civic engagement. Hundreds of residents from across the spectrum of viewpoints dedicated their Saturday to productive dialogue around firearms issues in our communities. The vision for the Community Summit on Firearms and Safety began with the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors shortly after the news of the horrific massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High Schoolin Parkland, Fla. Supervisor Dave Cortese took on the task of hosting a summit designed to demonstrate how we can share diverse opinions and avoid the all-too-common shouting matches we have experienced at town hall meetings.
|
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(7/25/2018)
|
These yo-yos don't get it. When it comes to our fundamental rights, the 'debate' has already been had, and there is absolutely no reason to rehash it simply because some people want to manufacture different outcomes.
The whole purpose of our constitutional structure is to preserve our liberties inviolate, no matter how many members of the body politic wish otherwise. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. — James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]. |
|
|
