|
|
|
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:
A libertarian case for gun control
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
Website: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"'Isn�t that an oxymoron?' someone quipped the other day, when I described myself as a sensible libertarian."
"The easiest response was, of course, simply to clarify that I�m not an anarchist. But could this exchange shed light on America�s gun problem? When firearms cause the death of more than 30,000 Americans a year, opposition to restricting access to them can seem incomprehensibly negligent. Are we happy to condemn the 47 per cent of Americans who don�t want increased gun control as gung-ho thugs?" ... |
| Comment by:
mickey
(7/1/2015)
|
| In other words, "I'm not a Libertarian but I play one on the internet"... |
| Comment by:
Wiz
(7/1/2015)
|
| She lost all credibility with her statement "guns cause 30,000 deaths". Only people CAUSE deaths, not tools. It is obvious she is neither truthful nor a Libertarian. |
| Comment by:
teebonicus
(7/1/2015)
|
Such a comely lass!
Maybe a good bare-bottom spanking would straighten her out.... |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
