|
|
|
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:
KY: Permitless concealed carry bill gets closer to becoming Kentucky law
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Legislation that would let people carry concealed guns in Kentucky without first getting a permit cleared another big hurdle in the state legislature Wednesday.
That was despite opposition from the Louisville Metro Police Department and a group of concerned mothers.
Senate Bill 150 swiftly passed in the state Senate recently, putting the Kentucky chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, a nationwide organization focused on preventing gun violence, on high alert.
The bill still needs the Kentucky House of Representatives' approval, but on Wednesday the House Judiciary Committee cleared its path to the House floor for a full vote. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(2/28/2019)
|
No permit law will stop, nor has stopped, violent criminals from carrying guns. That's just a fact.
So, then, what is the purpose, yea, the need, for a law-abiding taxpayer having a permit to carry?
With a permit law: bad guys will still carry
Without a permit law: bad guys will still carry
WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?
The issue isn't the guns, it's the people carrying and using them, and making folks who aren't criminals purchase a carry permit not only doesn't solve the problem, it isn't even aimed at the problem. Not really. |
|
|
| 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]. |
|
|
