Posted on 02/20/2015 3:07:17 PM PST by PROCON
On February 19, the Los Angeles Times reacted to the growing momentum for Campus Carry legislation across the country by referring to the NRA as “crackpots” and reminding the organization that it is the government’s “responsibility to protect the public through reasonable gun control laws.”
In other words, “shall not be infringed” does not mean shall not be regulated and/or controlled.
According to the Times, the NRA has hit a new low by promoting the idea that an expansion of Campus Carry means “gun-toting women would be armed to defend themselves in the event of sexual assaults.”
The Times claims no one should be surprised by the NRA’s position–after all, “these are the same crackpots who argued” that students should be allowed to carry guns for self-defense following the 2007 attack on Virginia Tech.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
>>In other words, “shall not be infringed” does not mean shall not be regulated and/or controlled.
It take a lot of college to become THAT stupid.
Sauce for the goose, beotches ...
Regulate THIS!
“reasonable gun control”
Imagine if you will a world in which that means a steady trigger pull. :-)
The Breitbart news organization still does a good job in publishing revealing information.
The extremist left uses the word “reasonable” and then begins by framing the position around their concept of what is reasonable. A reasonable gun control stance would be to take note of the areas where gun violence predominates, and then to dispatch more police into those areas. Or just disarm all residences within those areas. But that might have a disparate impact on the extremist left voting constituencies.
latimes IPOS/SPOS alert needed. I-N-F-R-I-N-G-E. Look it up in the funk’n wagnells asshats. It is one of the many things the govt is NOT supposed to mess with. Sheesh.
-----------
and reminding the organization that it is the government’s “responsibility to protect the public through reasonable gun control free speech laws.”
LA Times insists women should be disarmed.
Apparently their view is let the police handle it later.
Nope. They don't even process rape kits like they're supposed to.
No sweat — rape victims can be driven to the hospital by the cops later.
How would that paper enjoy some regulation of the 1st Amendment’s freedom of the press?
"Shall not be infringed" means that owning guns is an absolute right, and more. Our right to bear arms is also an absolute. A property owner can ban our guns from that private property, at the cost of losing our business, but government has no such authority on public property. Gun laws are obeyed only out of fear, never out of a moral obligation.
right after it regulates the 1st...
It’s getting real close to where Americans need to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights and take back America.
But many FReepers believe it's okay to regulate whether a felon can own a gun after he has served his time.
If you can regulate a certain group, it all becomes subjective who and what can be regulated.
The coroner for Brietbart died under mysterious circumstances as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.