|
|
|
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:
Lawmakers have Chance to Protect Oregonians with Gun-Violence Prevention Bill
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Twenty-two years ago my sister-in-law and three nieces, ages six, three and six months, were shot dead at point blank range by her husband, the children’s father, in Scotts Mills. At the time of this shooting, my sister-in-law and her husband were in the midst of a divorce and she had taken out a restraining order against him. Yet, even with that restraining order, her husband was able to acquire a shotgun that morning. If he would have never gotten his hands on a gun, I might be celebrating my nieces’ birthdays today. |
| Comment by:
dasing
(6/27/2017)
|
| Violent criminals do NOT care about laws, duh...! |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
