|
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:
Katie Pavlich: What’s really behind the ban on AR-15 green-tip ammo?
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
Website: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"The old joke about government covering up wrongdoing is, 'Move along folks, nothing to see here.' But that’s exactly what the [ATF] told Americans last week after being caught changing the rules to ban AR-15 M855 'green tip' ammunition without a proper public commenting period or congressional approval. This is no laughing matter."
"Under the guise of law enforcement safety, the ATF introduced a 'proposal' in February banning commonly used AR-15 green-tip ammunition, citing 'armor piercing' capabilities as justification. The problem? The ATF had already changed the rules in its 2014 Regulation Guidebook, stripping the exemption." ... |
Comment by:
Uncommon1
(3/10/2015)
|
Our government lies have gotten so bad that they do it and then ask the classic JR Ewing line from when he got caught in bed with a woman who wasn't his wife: "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes." What a terrible government has evolved over the last 50 years. |
|
|
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) |
|
|