|
|
|
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:
Democrats Try to Blame Guns for the Crime Surge Caused by Liberal Policies
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A crime wave is gripping American cities, and the Left, in the wake of a ruinous series of radical criminal-justice “reforms,” needs scapegoats.
As Kevin Williamson has explained, much of this can be traced back to ridiculous city ordinances, such as the abolition of cash bail in some major cities. But, glossing over such decisions, major news outlets and politicians have instead taken to describing the problem as an issue of gun violence. There’s a reason for this: So long as they maintain this account, the Left can avoid responsibility — even with their policy fingerprints all over the crime scenes. |
| Comment by:
jac
(7/9/2021)
|
The crime surge is the result of not putting criminals in jail.
The liberals are to blame for zero bail, lenient plea bargains, short or non-existent sentences, and probation.
The criminals have no fear of the criminal justice system as most go free with no punishment. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
